Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:21 No.16598289

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:21 No.16598289

No because freedom.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:24 No.16598370

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:24 No.16598370

Replies: >>16598439 >>16598460

>>16598276 (OP)
Yes because I deserve to profit from something I create.

But the IP should go public domain much sooner than 70 years after my death.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:25 No.16598380

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:25 No.16598380

>>16598276 (OP)
>intellectual property laws
In a society with no corporation taxes - no.

In a society with corporation taxes - yes.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:26 No.16598418

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:26 No.16598418

Replies: >>16598536 >>16600591

if this is not a troll post, I do find the stuff like IP/copyright stuff very strange...mostly because I work trading my time for money at an hourly pace. I don't understand how someone can come up with an idea, a song, a picture, a video, and demand millions or billions for it.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:27 No.16598427

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:27 No.16598427

Replies: >>16598517

No because you can't own thoughts and their products

If you have a great idea hide it/capitalize on it

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:27 No.16598439

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:27 No.16598439

Replies: >>16598603 >>16598636

>>16598370

>yes goy, give up your freedom so i can profit

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:28 No.16598460

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:28 No.16598460

Replies: >>16598550 >>16598609

>>16598370
Pretty much this.

The only people against IP rights are commies and uncreative people who are jealous that thee are other ways for making money than their back breaking work.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:30 No.16598515

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:30 No.16598515

Replies: >>16598551 >>16598764 >>16600591

>>16598276 (OP)
No, because it's stupid.

>make something creative
>other people see it
>everyone starts doing it
>NOOO STAAHP NOOOE U KANT DU DAT
>IZ MINES. I DID IT FIRST U CAN'T HAVE IT
>shut the fuck up, retard
>society advances

Yeah, it's fucking retarded and childish. It only exists because people are greedy as fuck and it benefits the elite. If it didn't help those on top it wouldn't exist.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:30 No.16598517

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:30 No.16598517

>>16598427
>you can't own
There is no objective ownership.

There could certainly be a consensus and it could certainly be written into law that people do own ideas and people could enforce this law.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:31 No.16598536

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:31 No.16598536

>>16598418
Because people will pay for it.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:31 No.16598550

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:31 No.16598550

Replies: >>16598585 >>16598609

>>16598460
>people who are for free market are commies

top lel

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:31 No.16598551

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:31 No.16598551

Replies: >>16598649 >>16598680 >>16600742

>>16598515
But what of utilitarian arguments in favour of IP?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:32 No.16598577

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:32 No.16598577

I guess there should be some sort of protection for businesses that don't just ripoff others.

IP as it is, is a joke though. a special treatment for the property intellectuals

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:32 No.16598585

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:32 No.16598585

Replies: >>16598602 >>16598609

>>16598550
IP isn't free market retard, as it involves the government regulating and enforcing it.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:33 No.16598602

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:33 No.16598602

>>16598585

>reading comprehension

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:33 No.16598603

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:33 No.16598603

Replies: >>16600270

>>16598439
IP laws as they are are much more beneficial for the big corporations.
>no-one else can use rounded corners lel
Disney built their empire on stories that had fallen our of Copyright, but don't want others to be able to do the same. It's them that push copyright law. With lifetime+death the +death is always related to Walt's death so that Steamboat Willy and thus Mickey mouse doesn't fall in to the public domain.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:33 No.16598609

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:33 No.16598609

>>16598550
sorry >>16598585
meant for this retard
>>16598460

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:33 No.16598636

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:33 No.16598636

Replies: >>16598710

>>16598439
Let me clarify.

I mean IP as actual creations, like writing a book or making some art. I support traditional IP law.

I don't support the current IP law system where three blue pixels can be copyrighted and Apple and Samsung fight to the death over it.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:34 No.16598649

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:34 No.16598649

>>16598551
The best way to utilize an idea is to spread it and make it available to the public.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:35 No.16598670

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:35 No.16598670

Replies: >>16598750

I own "the".
You can not use "the" in your sentences without paying me, as I own it.
> intellectual property laws in a nutshell

You don't own shit if you tell it to others. You want ownership over your idea? Keep it in your head then. Want to share it with others? You forfeit any ownership once you let others in on it.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:35 No.16598680

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:35 No.16598680

Replies: >>16598717 >>16598777

>>16598551

There isn't one.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:36 No.16598710

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:36 No.16598710

Replies: >>16598822

>>16598636

>line in the sand argument

And we should appoint you the arbiter of what are 'actual creations'?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:36 No.16598717

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:36 No.16598717

>>16598680
Exactly.

Not him btw.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:37 No.16598750

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:37 No.16598750

Replies: >>16598806 >>16600451

>>16598670
"the" is public domain, fuckwit. Now if you said you owned the glibbinflorgel, a theoretical seventeen-sided floppy-drive, that may make more sense.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:38 No.16598764

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:38 No.16598764

Replies: >>16598793

>>16598515
>Society advances
>Eliminate all authors
>Advance society
no

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:38 No.16598777

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:38 No.16598777

Replies: >>16598849 >>16599195

>>16598680
Yes there is.

Consider a firm.
With patents, this firm could conduct research into a particular field and then capitalise on the product of this research. This profit from the product of their research justifies the cost of research.
Without patents, the other firms could just copy what they produced, meaning that the original firm would not be compensated for the cost of research, meaning that they are less likely to conduct research.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:39 No.16598793

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:39 No.16598793

Replies: >>16598813 >>16598869

>>16598764

>implying authors need IP laws to exist

top lel

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:39 No.16598806

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:39 No.16598806

>>16598750
You can own the actual product, but you can't own sounds.
There is no difference in owning the sounds that make "the" and the sounds that make "glibbinflorgel".

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:39 No.16598813

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:39 No.16598813

Replies: >>16598870 >>16598978

>>16598793
So how exactly does an author make money without intellectual property?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:40 No.16598822

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:40 No.16598822

Replies: >>16598905

>>16598710
I'm not defining where the line is, but there certainly is one.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:40 No.16598827

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:40 No.16598827

Replies: >>16598858 >>16600591

Intellectual property:
>I own a hard drive -- it is my private property
>On this hard drive there happens to be different areas with different magnetism
>these represent 1s and 0s
>If there happens to be a combination of 1s and 0s that when put through a particular transform perform a function similar to some 1s and 0s I originated
>I send police to your house, who may legally break down your door to confiscate your property
>I also sue you for everything
>If you don't have money I get to put you in a cage

Sure seems like freedom

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:41 No.16598849

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:41 No.16598849

Replies: >>16598877 >>16599001 >>16600822

>>16598777
How about no.

In the fashion industry, for example, there is no IP on design.

This does not stop firms from coming up with new designs every season and profiting greatly from it.

What it does create, though, is a very healthy industry where there are many many players big and small.

While if we look at the smartphone industry....

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:41 No.16598852

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:41 No.16598852

b-b-but free things.
The only reason I don't support them is because I'm to jew to pay for anything.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:41 No.16598858

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:41 No.16598858

>>16598827
Only that has never happened ever.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:41 No.16598869

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:41 No.16598869

Replies: >>16598885 >>16600013

>>16598793
Authors need food and shelter. If they can't profit from their book, where does it come from?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:41 No.16598870

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:41 No.16598870

Replies: >>16598907 >>16600604

>>16598813

By selling their works to buyers.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:42 No.16598877

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:42 No.16598877

Replies: >>16598937

>>16598849
Are you saying fashion industry is producing better products than smartphones?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:42 No.16598885

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:42 No.16598885

Replies: >>16598926 >>16599007

>>16598869

>implying authors need IP laws to profit

« 零 » !vAFhebe0D6!!cLIbuDbY2e6
07/04/13(Thu)08:42 No.16598892

« 零 » !vAFhebe0D6!!cLIbuDbY2e6 07/04/13(Thu)08:42 No.16598892

File: 1372941761850.gif-(18 KB, 271x105, KID BANNER B.gif)

18 KB GIF

>Do you support intellectual property laws?

YES, BUT I DO NOT SUPPORT LEGISLATIONS THAT DETER THE VIOLATIONS OF "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY" LAWS.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:43 No.16598905

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:43 No.16598905

>>16598822

You do know that line in the sand argument are always internally inconsistent position and the line in the sand is just a manifestation of the special case argument.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:43 No.16598907

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:43 No.16598907

Replies: >>16598999

>>16598870
Only their work is not their own, as we've established there's no intellectual property.

The person who is successful in books is reduced to merely whoever can manufacture the cheapest paper.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:43 No.16598926

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:43 No.16598926

Replies: >>16599033

>>16598885
They do. There is no way that a year spent writing a book can be profitable if the entire contents of your book can simply be copied in an hour and sold by someone else.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:44 No.16598932

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:44 No.16598932

File: 1372941847480.png-(77 KB, 375x444, dark entity.png)

77 KB PNG

>>16598276 (OP)
Yes, because people deserve a right to their property.

The only people opposing IP laws are lazy commie bums and libertarian thieves who both want to be able to profit off of someone else's creative work without putting in any effort themselves - and, of course, pic related.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:44 No.16598937

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:44 No.16598937

Replies: >>16599029

>>16598877

I am saying that an industry can be profitable without IP.

Your strawman doesn't even make sense. Don't get so desperate, shill.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:44 No.16598942

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:44 No.16598942

Replies: >>16598977 >>16599070

semi-professional writer here.

I don't expect to get paid for writing a poem or story. If your only marketable skill is the ability to paint a picture or play an instrument, you should probably kill yourself. Art is and should be free.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:45 No.16598977

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:45 No.16598977

>>16598942
That's code for you haven't been successful with your work and never will, so you want to drag actual professional writers down to your level.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:45 No.16598978

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:45 No.16598978

Replies: >>16598998 >>16599081 >>16600591

>>16598813
To express their creativity and share it with the world.

>what is fan faction
>what is fan art
I'll tell you what it is. It's creative express being born and nobody is making money off of it. People don't make art for money, they do it for expression. Creative people will continue to create weather there is profit or not.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:46 No.16598998

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:46 No.16598998

Replies: >>16599133

>>16598978
And what gives you the right to take his work and sell copies of it?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:46 No.16598999

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:46 No.16598999

Replies: >>16599099

>>16598907
>The person who is successful in books is reduced to merely whoever can manufacture the cheapest paper.

False. When the 9/11 commission report was published, a firm made a deal with the US gubmint to be a sole publisher. Despite the fact that an online version was put up before print went on sale and that the printed version can only be sold for $10 as per the agreement, the firm made a substantial profit.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:46 No.16599001

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:46 No.16599001

Replies: >>16599201

>>16598849
Only tiny amounts of research is actually done into improving the functionality of the clothing.

The same can not be said with the technology industry.

I didn't ask if you support current IP laws, I asked if there isn't some system of IP that you would prefer.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:46 No.16599007

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:46 No.16599007

Replies: >>16599063 >>16599075

>>16598885
> Because Edison ripping off other people's patents didn't drive the original inventors out of business.

The US constitution is wise, much wiser than anyone here, and it established IP law in this country.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:46 No.16599025

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:46 No.16599025

>>16598276 (OP)

I don't support it, because I'm old enough to remember neighbourhood (offline) file sharing for the C64 and the Amiga. A lot of the time, those games simply weren't sold in local shops, so piracy was literally the only way to get them. That led to me believing strongly in open source software as an adult, as well. I'm using Windows 7 right now, but I've compiled Linux From Scratch before, and I still use cygwin, Vim, 7-Zip, Audacity, The Gimp, and Mplayer on every Windows install.

Ditto with TV shows like Game of Thrones, and even Star Trek. Not long ago, I went to my Amazon account, fully intending to get a paid subscription to Amazon Prime, so that I could watch Star Trek. Because I'm in Australia, though, I got the usual bullshit about how it wasn't available in my country; and the same with Netflix. So sites like Project Free TV are literally the only way I can do what I want, in that respect.

A lot of the time it's true with books, too, especially rare ones. I'm also not a freeloader; I sent an author of one book I got from torrenting, $50 because I thought it was the best book I've ever read. I have a Steam account too, and I pay for some games, because it's the right thing to do.

Copyright law and online distribution systems still need to change a lot, before we get to the point where I'm ready to give up file sharing/piracy completely; and even then I probably won't. The Warez must flow. ;)

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:47 No.16599029

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:47 No.16599029

Replies: >>16599105

>>16598937
>an industry
fine. But to argue for the abolition of IP laws you need to show EVER industry can be profitable without IP.

At the moment, you've shown us that at least the fashion industry won't collapse. Great.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:47 No.16599033

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:47 No.16599033

Replies: >>16599126

>>16598926

>argument from ignorance

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:47 No.16599045

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:47 No.16599045

Replies: >>16599256

"The Congress shall have Power ... 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."

People who oppose IP law confirmed for dirty traitors who hate the Constitution.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:48 No.16599063

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:48 No.16599063

>>16599007

The constitution doesn't establish IP law in the US, retard, It says that it is permissible for the senate to establish one to promote creative works.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:48 No.16599070

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:48 No.16599070

>>16598942
Nah, you're just bad at capitalism.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:48 No.16599075

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:48 No.16599075

Replies: >>16599172

>>16599007

It would have been a lot wiser if it hadn't included a federal legislature, but had instead allowed voting on laws to occur within local assemblies.

The Republican model is a bad thing. Rome proved that, and America is proving it again now.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:48 No.16599081

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:48 No.16599081

Replies: >>16599123 >>16599138

File: 1372942113007.jpg-(119 KB, 326x284, 1324150797262.jpg)

119 KB JPG

>>16598978
Holy shit. You actually think fan fiction is a decent replacement for proper literature.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:49 No.16599099

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:49 No.16599099

Replies: >>16599159

>>16598999
Erm...
>Deal with the US government

yeah that's the whole point.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:49 No.16599105

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:49 No.16599105

>>16599029
>But to argue for the abolition of IP laws you need to show EVER industry can be profitable without IP.

lol what

I guess to abolish immigration of niggers and muslim you have to show EVERY nigger and muslims are bad for society, then?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:50 No.16599123

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:50 No.16599123

Replies: >>16599185

>>16599081
I'm not saying it is.
I'm saying when someone has an idea they will bring it to fruition even if there is no money in it for them.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:50 No.16599126

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:50 No.16599126

Replies: >>16599233

>>16599033
what? You're stating there IS a way, but nobody knows it?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:50 No.16599133

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:50 No.16599133

Replies: >>16599152 >>16599213

>>16598998

What gives him the right to get state-sanctioned monopoly over numbers?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:50 No.16599138

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:50 No.16599138

>>16599081
He's probably a fan-fiction writer who hates and resents actual writers, and would like to see their legitimacy destroyed by abolishing IP law.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:51 No.16599152

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:51 No.16599152

Replies: >>16599377

>>16599133
Answer my question first. What gives you the right to STEAL someone else's work and sell it as though it's your own?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:51 No.16599159

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:51 No.16599159

Replies: >>16599204

>>16599099

except the work was and has always been in the public domain, idiot.

if the firm could profit from a public domain work, so can you.

many publishers sell books that are in the public domain and make money.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:51 No.16599172

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:51 No.16599172

Replies: >>16599221

>>16599075
America isn't a republic. It is a federation. But I agree, a confederacy was better.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:52 No.16599185

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:52 No.16599185

Replies: >>16599315 >>16599390

>>16599123
Only this never happens. People are free to write books and distribute them without profit within the current system.

How many authors do that exactly?

Oh yeah, because authors need money to live. The profit motive is what keeps things going. Capitalism needs to be harnessed as the force for good it almost always is.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:52 No.16599195

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:52 No.16599195

>>16598777
Nope, all that will happen is that they will increase security around their R&D.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:52 No.16599201

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:52 No.16599201

Replies: >>16599289 >>16599381

>>16599001

>Only tiny amounts of research is actually done into improving the functionality of the clothing.

lel

So how much is the threshold for deserving IP protection?

I already pointed out that line-in-the-sand argument is just a form of special case argument which is a result of internally inconsistent position.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:52 No.16599204

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:52 No.16599204

Replies: >>16599275

>>16599159
>Deal with the US government
>Sole publisher

tum tee tum

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:52 No.16599213

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:52 No.16599213

Replies: >>16599398

>>16599133
Because he created it.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:53 No.16599221

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:53 No.16599221

Replies: >>16599259

>>16599172
America isn't a federation. It's a democracy.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:53 No.16599233

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:53 No.16599233

Replies: >>16599286 >>16599313

>>16599126
I already pointed out how a companies can profit from printing public domain work.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:54 No.16599256

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:54 No.16599256

>>16599045

>implying the constitution necessitates IP laws

how about you don't omit the important part?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:54 No.16599259

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:54 No.16599259

>>16599221
No it's not, asshole. It's a federation with a representative-republican form of government.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:55 No.16599275

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:55 No.16599275

Replies: >>16599311

>>16599204

>strawman

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:55 No.16599286

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:55 No.16599286

Replies: >>16599674

>>16599233
Now how can individuals do so? How is a writer supposed to make money if the moment he approaches a publisher or even directly approaches a bookstore to sell his book, they just take a copy and start selling it themselves and he doesn't see a penny of the profits?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:55 No.16599289

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:55 No.16599289

Replies: >>16599369

>>16599201
Sorry, what's the line in the sand argument?

"dude, it's just 0s and 1s! that's like so not cool to copyright that"?

Is that it?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:55 No.16599311

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:55 No.16599311

>>16599275
Strawman? I'm merely highlighting the fact that IP laws were present.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:55 No.16599313

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:55 No.16599313

Replies: >>16599368

>>16599233
> printing

That's manufacturing. Whether someone can profit from manufacturing is not in question.

What about authors?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:55 No.16599315

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:55 No.16599315

Replies: >>16599333 >>16599394 >>16599400

>>16599185

Explain to me how doing something first gives you the right to put people in jail for doing it after you did it first.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:56 No.16599333

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:56 No.16599333

>>16599315
>Horrifically obvious straw man

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:57 No.16599368

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:57 No.16599368

Replies: >>16599410 >>16599452

>>16599313

an author can offer his work to a publisher. the publisher has first access to the work and will be able to sell it first before any competitors.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:57 No.16599369

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:57 No.16599369

Replies: >>16599393

>>16599289
Not anon, but surely you must understand the 'line in the sand argument'?

Essentially it's to do with the arbitrary position of the line and the binary decision relating to it.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:58 No.16599377

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:58 No.16599377

Replies: >>16599415

>>16599152

Not stealing because it isn't his, idiot.

You can't own numbers.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:58 No.16599381

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:58 No.16599381

Replies: >>16599531

>>16599201
When did we decide the world had to be simple, black and white?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:58 No.16599390

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:58 No.16599390

Replies: >>16599426 >>16599526

>>16599185
They don't distribute for free because they can get paid. However they they could not get paid they would still write.

People don't create for the soul purpose of money. They just have the option to these days so why wouldn't they?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:58 No.16599393

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:58 No.16599393

Replies: >>16599499

>>16599369
But doesn't line drawing pertain to all law, then?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:58 No.16599394

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:58 No.16599394

Replies: >>16599441

>>16599315
Doing something, like what, selling books? That's not what you go in jail for.

You go in jail for directly copying a specific intellectual work that you didn't come up with AND NEVER WOULD HAVE COME UP WITH and trying to sell it as if it's your own.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:58 No.16599398

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:58 No.16599398

Replies: >>16599436 >>16599545

>>16599213

He didn't create it, he simply wrote it down.

You can not create numbers.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:58 No.16599400

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:58 No.16599400

>>16599315
Are we talking copyright or patent law here?

If I'm Mark Twain and write Huckleberry Finn, and you start selling the same book called Huckleberry Finn, there is no way you came up with that on your own.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:58 No.16599410

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:58 No.16599410

Replies: >>16599596

>>16599368
>sell it before any competitors
one day before, a day which everyone will wait to get the book half price, and this phenomenon will stop that ever happening.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:59 No.16599415

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:59 No.16599415

Replies: >>16599747

>>16599377
We're talking about books here, not numbers.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:59 No.16599426

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:59 No.16599426

Replies: >>16599487

>>16599390
>I have a job
>I will continue this job without getting paid
>Fuck needing income

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:59 No.16599436

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:59 No.16599436

Replies: >>16599547

>>16599398
No, he did create it. It wasn't floating in the air and he just happened to come across it. The story originated in his own brain, he made it. Then he wrote it down.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)08:59 No.16599441

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)08:59 No.16599441

Replies: >>16599500

>>16599394
>You go in jail for directly copying a specific intellectual work that you didn't come up with

I may or may not have come up with it. But just because a person came up with it before anyone else, that gives him exclusive use of that idea? By that logic the first person to thin of walking would own walking for 70 years?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:00 No.16599451

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:00 No.16599451

>>16598276 (OP)

The question is stupid: There has to be IP law. What you mean to ask is probably whether or not this law should be liberal or not.

One key problem of IP law is enforcement, because to be effective, it has to be applied worldwide, only treaties can achieve that. Shit comes when giant countries like Russia do not take part in such treaties, or just sign them but do not enforce them.

IP law is necessary but should be very light, and permissive.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:00 No.16599452

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:00 No.16599452

Replies: >>16599534 >>16599617

>>16599368
That is what copyright law says. The issue is how long should the exclusive period last? Life + 70 years is too long, I totally agree.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:01 No.16599487

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:01 No.16599487

>>16599426
>get a job
>write in free time
>fuck recreation

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:01 No.16599496

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:01 No.16599496

Replies: >>16600584

>>16598276 (OP)
>Do you support intellectual property laws?

Only to a limited extent.

>Why/why not?

Because MUH FREEDOMS!

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:01 No.16599499

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:01 No.16599499

Replies: >>16599643

>>16599393

Except the argument of
>>Only tiny amounts of research is actually done into improving the functionality of the clothing.

requires the arbitrary distinction of 'tiny' and the implication that any amount above this 'tiny' deserves IP protection.

This is simply because a person feels like something is wrong, then when he is pointed to a counter-example, he simply creates a line to exclude said counter example. This is a special case argument.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:01 No.16599500

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:01 No.16599500

Replies: >>16599772

>>16599441
>But just because a person came up with it before anyone else, that gives him exclusive use of that idea?
Yes.

I know you'd like to be able to just copy a successful author's books and sell copies of it your own. Sounds like a nice way to make money with zero effort, right? To bad you can't, you commie thief.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:02 No.16599526

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:02 No.16599526

Replies: >>16599624

>>16599390
If people have to work 8+ hours a day, they have a lot less time to perfect their art than if they can do it professionally.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:02 No.16599531

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:02 No.16599531

>>16599381

>strawman

The point is that line-in-the-sand argument is made because the opposition shows a counter-example, so the proponent excludes said counter example, in this case by introducing an arbitrary designation of 'tiny' to exclude the counter-example.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:03 No.16599534

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:03 No.16599534

Replies: >>16599585

>>16599452
It's life + 70 years so there's no incentive to just murder someone so their IP opens up. Even if you had them killed, 70 years later you'd have died of old age anyways.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:03 No.16599545

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:03 No.16599545

>>16599398
What numbers are you talking about?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:03 No.16599547

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:03 No.16599547

Replies: >>16599603 >>16599665 >>16599734

>>16599436

Do you think people can own numbers.

Say 105849584. Can I own that and nobody can use it?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:04 No.16599585

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:04 No.16599585

>>16599534
That makes sense.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:04 No.16599596

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:04 No.16599596

Replies: >>16599708

>>16599410

That is bad how?

If a consumer can get something at half price, how is that bad?

why should the public give up their freedom to copy and share so a guy and his publisher can profit more?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:05 No.16599603

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:05 No.16599603

>>16599547
We're talking about books, not numbers. The fact that you keep veering away from books and over to numbers (which aren't covered by IP law anyways you fucking retard) suggests you know you're wrong and want the conversation to devolve to nonsense so you don't have to admit it.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:05 No.16599617

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:05 No.16599617

>>16599452

no a copyright law says that the people's right to copy and share is void and anybody who copies and shares without authorisation shall be put to jail.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:05 No.16599624

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:05 No.16599624

Replies: >>16599661

>>16599526
Yeah I know. I'm guess IP is good for something, however with the internet we have been shown the dawn of a new age. Pirating is the shit and no one can stop it. There's no going back from here. Once a technology is out of the box it's impossible to but it back.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:06 No.16599641

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:06 No.16599641

File: 1372943182997.jpg-(87 KB, 627x576, 1371471538051.jpg)

87 KB JPG

>>16598276 (OP)
>Do you support intellectual property laws?
>b-but muh sheckels
suck it up juden, you can't leech forever

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:06 No.16599643

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:06 No.16599643

Replies: >>16599707

>>16599499
This is why I don't think arguing on /pol/ is productive - you can't tell who is saying what

Are you for or against IP?

Saying that IP laws are bad because they require line-drawing is unusual, because essentially all laws require line-drawing.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:07 No.16599661

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:07 No.16599661

Replies: >>16599819

>>16599624
IP law and piracy are not mutually exclusive. IP law is about preventing people from SELLING stolen work, not about giving it away for free.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:07 No.16599665

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:07 No.16599665

Replies: >>16599774

>>16599547
No, retard. Numbers are excluded because they are not creative.

Now, if the numbers had meaning aside from representing values, like a cryptographically encoded book or story, that would be protected. (But only the work as a whole, not the numbers themselves.)

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:07 No.16599674

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:07 No.16599674

Replies: >>16599727

>>16599286

First of all, the author doesn't have to show his work. Secondly, the publisher that takes (presuming they could ) from author would go out of business quickly against a publisher that simply gives authors their agreed due and build a relationship with an author and can sell his next books.

Free market is great, isn't it?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:08 No.16599702

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:08 No.16599702

Replies: >>16599775

Copyright should last for five years from time of first commercial sale or usage, with a one time option to renew for an additional five years.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:08 No.16599707

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:08 No.16599707

Replies: >>16599771

>>16599643

Holy shit you are retarded.

reread the thread, moron.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:08 No.16599708

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:08 No.16599708

Replies: >>16599915

>>16599596
Because they don't have a right to the artist's property.

The consumer is not entitled to anything. Take your quasi socialism elsewhere.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:09 No.16599727

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:09 No.16599727

Replies: >>16599960

>>16599674
>the author doesn't have to show his work.
>getting published
>the author doesn't have to show his work.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ok seriously it's time for you to shut the fuck up. You don't have a clue how getting a book published works, you don't have a clue how writing as an industry works: you have absolutely no reason to have an opinion on how IP law should interact with literature.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:09 No.16599734

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:09 No.16599734

Replies: >>16599888

>>16599547
This ignores the consequentialist argument in favour of IP laws.

Yes, IP laws require line-drawing, but so do basically all laws.
>It wasn't quite negligent homicide, officer, I just agreed to drive him to the movies and thought it would be a good time to take a nap

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:09 No.16599747

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:09 No.16599747

Replies: >>16599774

>>16599415

any information is representable with numbers. so if you can own a 'book' (which is actually the string of characters and not the actual book) then you can own numbers. If you convert said string into an ascii representation and concatenate them together you will get a number.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:10 No.16599771

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:10 No.16599771

Replies: >>16599807

>>16599707
Basically all laws require line drawing.

Saying that IP laws are bad because they require line drawing seems to ignore this.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:10 No.16599772

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:10 No.16599772

Replies: >>16599796

>>16599500

>for state-sanctioned monopoly
>call others commie-thief

top lel

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:10 No.16599774

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:10 No.16599774

Replies: >>16600127

>>16599747
See >>16599665

>Now, if the numbers had meaning aside from representing values, like a cryptographically encoded book or story, that would be protected. (But only the work as a whole, not the numbers themselves.)

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:10 No.16599775

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:10 No.16599775

>>16599702
I'd say 20 years, but it should be a period that can end before death.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:11 No.16599796

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:11 No.16599796

>>16599772
Guess I can just shoot you. After all, you don't want to have a state-sanctioned monopoly on your life, right? So your life also belongs to me, and I can choose to end it.

>your logic

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:11 No.16599801

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:11 No.16599801

>>16598276 (OP)
No i believe in the free market, if you belive in copyright laws you also belive in censorship

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:11 No.16599807

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:11 No.16599807

Replies: >>16599940

>>16599771

reread the thread. You are strawmanning.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:12 No.16599819

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:12 No.16599819

Replies: >>16599889 >>16599893

>>16599661
The problem is nobody is going to buy people's work anyway. IP is an obsolete idea. The internet age is still young. Eventually pirating will be so prevalent law makers will realize it's futile to try and enforce these laws. This idea is on it's way out regardless.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:12 No.16599828

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:12 No.16599828

Replies: >>16599931 >>16599938

The point is, enforcing intellectual property laws costs money.
How do I benefit from my tax money beeing spend to protect the IP of some musician?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:14 No.16599888

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:14 No.16599888

Replies: >>16599978

>>16599734

Holy fuck can you stop.

The line-in-the-sand was meant at a particular argument used against a particular counter-example.

Please moron, reread the thread and stop shitting up the thread.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:14 No.16599889

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:14 No.16599889

Replies: >>16599972 >>16599987 >>16600054

>>16599819
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI

See: piracy is free advertising. People who pirate a book will still usually buy a physical copy.

Piracy is not what IP law is about.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:14 No.16599893

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:14 No.16599893

Replies: >>16599987

>>16599819
Not all of us stare at computer screens 24/7. There will always be a place for physical art.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:15 No.16599915

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:15 No.16599915

Replies: >>16599950 >>16599967 >>16600068

>>16599708
>to the artist's property.

It's not property. Property refers to a physical object.

Drawing analogy between actual stuff and ideas is terrible because it ignores fundamental differences between them.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:15 No.16599931

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:15 No.16599931

>>16599828
in the future musicians will only make money from live performances

like actors did hundreds of years ago

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:15 No.16599938

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:15 No.16599938

Replies: >>16600072

>>16599828
How do I benefit from police stopping someone from killing you?

Not everything needs to be reduced to a cost-benefit analysis.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:15 No.16599940

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:15 No.16599940

Replies: >>16600001

>>16599807
Restate the line-in-the-sand argument, please.
That's exactly what it seems like
>it requires line drawing, therefore it is bad

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:16 No.16599950

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:16 No.16599950

Replies: >>16600033

>>16599915
So you agree that anyone can just take the money you have in your bank account? Because it's just data, it's not physical.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:16 No.16599960

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:16 No.16599960

Replies: >>16600009

>>16599727
>Ok seriously it's time for you to shut the fuck up. You don't have a clue how getting a book published works

You mean how getting a book in the current IP climate published?

Maybe you can read and comprehend before you spam HAHHA because you think something is funny.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:16 No.16599967

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:16 No.16599967

Replies: >>16600069

>>16599915
Art is property the moment it is laid down in a fixed, observable form.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:17 No.16599972

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:17 No.16599972

>>16599889
>People who pirate a book will still usually buy a physical copy.

With the popularity of e-readers, this phenomenon will be on the decline.

it's already irrelevant to software, music and largely to movies. There's no real advantage in buying their packaging esp. when the price is made for one to get the media when he didn't have it before

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:17 No.16599978

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:17 No.16599978

Replies: >>16600094

>>16599888
That's exactly what it seems like

Yes, it requires line drawing, but this does not mean it is bad

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:17 No.16599987

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:17 No.16599987

Replies: >>16600046 >>16600048

>>16599889
>>16599893
you guys got me there

not sure what we learned from all this...

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:17 No.16600001

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:17 No.16600001

Replies: >>16600026

>>16599940

Reread the thread.

What you are doing is strawman.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:18 No.16600009

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:18 No.16600009

>>16599960
You seriously think a publisher will just publish a book without even reading it. Holy shit you're an idiot and YES, I will laugh my ass off at your absurd ideas.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You fucking retard!

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:18 No.16600013

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:18 No.16600013

>>16598869
>implying they are entitled to earn money as authors.

If they aren't able to profit from writing, they can aswell work at McDonalds

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:18 No.16600026

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:18 No.16600026

Replies: >>16600158

>>16600001
I did reread it.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:18 No.16600033

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:18 No.16600033

Replies: >>16600076

>>16599950

The bank agreed with me that they will give me back physical money at a later time.

So as long as the bank keeps this promise, I don't care if anybody 'takes money from my bank account'

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:19 No.16600046

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:19 No.16600046

>>16599987

that physical art galleries are in no way representative of the media we like to consume?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:19 No.16600048

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:19 No.16600048

Replies: >>16600124

>>16599987
That piracy is ok.
And that selling someone else's work without their permission is not.

Hint: IP law prevents the latter, not the former. Companies like the MPAA/RIAA going after pirates are in a very grey area legally speaking.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:19 No.16600054

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:19 No.16600054

Replies: >>16600124 >>16600171

>>16599889
Am I right that IP law is really all about actualizing thought crime by copyrighting ideas and pretending there's truly any such thing as originality?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:19 No.16600068

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:19 No.16600068

Replies: >>16600237

>>16599915
Faggot, you can't copyright ideas. Everyone knows that.

You can copyright sheet music, books, recordings, paintings, and any other creative work fixed in space. But not ideas.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:19 No.16600069

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:19 No.16600069

Replies: >>16600266

>>16599967

says you.

I will agree that that particular physical representation of said art is protected by property law.

but not the particular arrangement of color on a 2d plane that could represent said art.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:19 No.16600072

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:19 No.16600072

>>16599938
>How do I benefit from police stopping someone from killing you?

Police is not only protecting me, but you aswell.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:20 No.16600076

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:20 No.16600076

Replies: >>16600217

>>16600033
Well they can't give it back to you because someone else took it. What now?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:20 No.16600086

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:20 No.16600086

>tfw I once dreamed about having to create a phone with a triangle screen since square screens was patented

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:20 No.16600094

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:20 No.16600094

Replies: >>16600142

>>16599978
>That's exactly what it seems like

Well what you think it seems like is wrong because you have failed at reading and constantly spams this shit while if yuo had just reread you would have figured it out by now.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:21 No.16600105

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:21 No.16600105

Replies: >>16600146 >>16600154

>>16598276 (OP)
Of course.
Without the creator of a song, book, or video game being able to exclusively market it, they would have no reason to create such a thing.

If you want songs for free, you can find downloadable indie songs, but that just acts as advertising for that band, and they're hoping you BUY some of their other stuff.

Same goes for everything.

If a person creates something, they should own that something. There should be limits on the length of time, but the limits should depend on the item...patents on new drugs, for instance, should time out pretty quickly, because they are not something certain people can live without...things like video game engines should last a very long time, because they are not necessities to life.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:21 No.16600124

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:21 No.16600124

Replies: >>16600150 >>16600155

>>16600048
I can agee with this, as the one who wrote >>16600054. Also, plagiarism is just plain wrong.

It just seems that being inspired by something is itself infringement under what some people's ideal of copyright law is.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:21 No.16600127

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:21 No.16600127

Replies: >>16600172

>>16599774

So you agree that numbers should be ownable, then.

I will just let you think about how retarded that is. Hint: IP laws are as retarded, it is just not as obvious.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:22 No.16600142

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:22 No.16600142

Replies: >>16600192

>>16600094
Point out how it was incorrect, specifically.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:22 No.16600146

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:22 No.16600146

Replies: >>16600178 >>16600318

>>16600105
>Without the creator of a song, book, or video game being able to exclusively market it, they would have no reason to create such a thing.

So according to your logic, before the impementation of IP laws, no song or books were created, right?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:22 No.16600150

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:22 No.16600150

Replies: >>16600351

>>16600124
>It just seems that being inspired by something is itself infringement under what some people's ideal of copyright law is.

Not even the music industry follows this , so whoever believes this can get lost.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:22 No.16600154

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:22 No.16600154

Replies: >>16600215 >>16600269

>>16600105
>Without the creator of a song, book, or video game being able to exclusively market it, they would have no reason to create such a thing.

Explain free open-source video games.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:22 No.16600155

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:22 No.16600155

Replies: >>16600351

>>16600124
Personally, I don't really care what you do with IP law and copyright law and so on as long as lazy libertarian bums can't just take someone else's hard work and make money off of it.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:22 No.16600158

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:22 No.16600158

Replies: >>16600224

>>16600026

ddi you figure out why you are strawmanning?

if you didn't youre an idiot.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:23 No.16600171

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:23 No.16600171

Replies: >>16600293

>>16600054
No, you can't copyright ideas. Where do people come up with this shit?

You can only copyright a work that is fixed in space. That physical work is unique, even if it is similar to other things that came before. (If it isn't unique it isn't subject to copyright protection.)

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:23 No.16600172

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:23 No.16600172

Replies: >>16600368

>>16600127
I agree that the meaning encoded by that specific arrangement of numbers should be ownable, yes.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:23 No.16600178

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:23 No.16600178

Replies: >>16600263 >>16600336

>>16600146
>So according to your logic, before the impementation of IP laws, no song or books were created, right?

Wrong, because composers in the past were being fed by monarchs and royals to create them entertainment.
they were paying them for their intellectual work

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:24 No.16600192

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:24 No.16600192

Replies: >>16600244

>>16600142

how about you reread the thread

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:24 No.16600215

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:24 No.16600215

Replies: >>16600352

>>16600154

Not any good games out there that don't use code that has been sold proprietary in the past.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:24 No.16600217

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:24 No.16600217

>>16600076

Then they broke their agreement and so I can take them to court.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:25 No.16600224

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:25 No.16600224

Replies: >>16600265

>>16600158
Instead of repeating "strawman", perhaps you could point out how it was incorrect.

>IP laws are bad because they require line drawing

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:25 No.16600237

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:25 No.16600237

Replies: >>16600379

>>16600068

Replace ideas with information.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:25 No.16600244

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:25 No.16600244

>>16600192
I did
How about you point out how it was wrong, specifically, instead of just saying that it is wrong

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:26 No.16600263

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:26 No.16600263

Replies: >>16600283 >>16600289

>>16600178
And today we have no people who could pay authors for their work?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:26 No.16600265

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:26 No.16600265

Replies: >>16600288

>>16600224

Perhaps you could reread the thread and stop repeating your strawman.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:26 No.16600266

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:26 No.16600266

Replies: >>16600307

>>16600069
Derivative works may or may not be protected. It depends how creative it is in its own right.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:26 No.16600269

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:26 No.16600269

Replies: >>16600352 >>16600373

>>16600154
Name just one good free open-source game.

Oh look you can't.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:26 No.16600270

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:26 No.16600270

>>16598603
Not a good example.
Disney created Steamboat Willy & Micky Mouse...they did NOT create the story of Cinderella.
Therefore, if you want to make a movie about Cinderella, you are more than welcome to do so.
But you can't have Mickey Mouse in it.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:27 No.16600283

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:27 No.16600283

Replies: >>16600329

>>16600263
So you're saying authors should be forced to suck some rich faggot's cock and hope he gives them a few shekels?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:27 No.16600288

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:27 No.16600288

>>16600265
I did. Tell me how it was wrong instead of just asserting it

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:27 No.16600289

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:27 No.16600289

Replies: >>16600357

>>16600263

If anything it would be media catering to the rich people not us

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:27 No.16600293

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:27 No.16600293

Replies: >>16600440

>>16600171
>That physical work is unique

a book isn't unique. unless you refer to the actual physical book and not the arrangement of letters.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:28 No.16600307

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:28 No.16600307

Replies: >>16600362 >>16600460

>>16600266
>. It depends how creative it is in its own right.

another line-in-the-sand argument

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:28 No.16600308

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:28 No.16600308

>>16598276 (OP)
If the R of the P doesn't support it, then it's definitely not good.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:28 No.16600318

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:28 No.16600318

>>16600146
They were only created by people who had the leisure and wealth to do so.

Funny how IP was actually conceived to help the little guy.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:28 No.16600329

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:28 No.16600329

Replies: >>16600382

>>16600283
I am saying that authors are not entitled to earning money as authors.
If they can't find buyers for their work, they are free to look for another job.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:29 No.16600336

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:29 No.16600336

Replies: >>16600425

>>16600178
>Wrong, because composers in the past were being fed by monarchs and royals to create them entertainment.

So I guess in the roman republic, where there were no monarchs and royals, there were also no authors or musicians right?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:29 No.16600347

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:29 No.16600347

File: 1372944568445.gif-(12 KB, 504x566, libertarian.gif)

12 KB GIF

I see the libertarians are still refusing to admit their real motivation for disliking IP law: they just want some quick easy money from copying other people's work and selling it.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:29 No.16600351

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:29 No.16600351

Replies: >>16600584

>>16600155
That would be plagiarism and also inherently stealing. I agree with this.

>>16600150
Actually, there's a real world example that I'm thinking of, but it's not the music industry.

System V and BSD.

Originally UNIX Timesharing System was, in a way, open source, under an educational license. So a bunch of forks were made. Eventually, the telephone company who had the copyrights to it made it closed source, and started working on a strictly proprietary fork of it (called System V).

Meanwhile, some people still wouldn't abandon their fork (BSD) which was then illegal, though it wasn't when it was started.

I see that situation those working on BSD were as being worthy of pity, since really, they hadn't done anything wrong, but the telephone company had lawyers up their ass about it and everything.

I don't know all the details, but eventually the case was pretty much dismissed, as the copyright changed hands, and the new copyright holder didn't give a shit about one line of code.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:29 No.16600352

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:29 No.16600352

Replies: >>16600484

>>16600269
>>16600215
>good

That is A) Pretty gosh darn subjective, and B) irrelevant to your claim that no one would create content for free.

As for my personal tastes, I offer up various roguelikes such as Nethack and Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup. Both free and open source. There's also Dwarf Fortress which is free, though not open-source.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:29 No.16600357

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:29 No.16600357

Replies: >>16600501

>>16600289
We have money too. Especially, as a collective.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:29 No.16600362

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:29 No.16600362

Replies: >>16600618

>>16600307
Why should someone oppose something simply because it requires "a line in the sand"?

What if this "line in the sand" brings about something that is valued?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:30 No.16600368

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:30 No.16600368

Replies: >>16600403 >>16600456 >>16600521 >>16600538

>>16600172

Oh so you think people can own numbers.

So if I owned 59580949859 and somebody writes tht down, off to jail he goes?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:30 No.16600373

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:30 No.16600373

Replies: >>16600530

>>16600269
pong

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:30 No.16600379

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:30 No.16600379

Replies: >>16600533

>>16600237
Depends on the information and whether it constitutes a creative work.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:30 No.16600382

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:30 No.16600382

>>16600329
>If they can't find buyers for their work
They can: people who go to a bookstore to buy copies of the book. IP law is just there to ensure that when these people go to the bookstore and buy those copies of the book, the money goes to the person who wrote it and the people he authorized to sell it.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:31 No.16600403

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:31 No.16600403

Replies: >>16600496

>>16600368
What does 59580949859 mean? Does it encode a song you wrote?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:31 No.16600425

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:31 No.16600425

Replies: >>16600515

>>16600336

Actually for how long they've existed their quantity of such works is very low compared to the modern west.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:32 No.16600440

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:32 No.16600440

Replies: >>16600660

>>16600293
A book could be unique. But yes, I mean the story it contains.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:32 No.16600451

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:32 No.16600451

Replies: >>16600859

>>16598750
There are a number of things that can't be copyrighted, such as titles of books or songs...they can be trademarked, under certain brand circumstances, but due to the problem that there are only so many words in the English language, and therefore a limited number of combinations that can make up a title, you can't copyright a title.

You CAN copyright a book, however, because the potential combination of words in an entire book is limitless (almost).

And with the new copyright laws in effect, your book is under copyright the very moment you write it, you no longer have to pay for a copyright (but you can't use the "c" in a circle marker, all you can do is say "copyright 2013 by so & so").

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:32 No.16600456

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:32 No.16600456

Replies: >>16600472

>>16600368
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy

It's been tried.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:33 No.16600460

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:33 No.16600460

>>16600307
So? Life is full of lines in the sand. It's part of human society.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:33 No.16600472

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:33 No.16600472

>>16600456
So is it a song you wrote? Does it have any meaning beyond that of the number itself?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:33 No.16600484

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:33 No.16600484

File: 1372944831088.jpg-(141 KB, 1024x768, 3.jpg)

141 KB JPG

>>16600352
what a joke.

you have to understand not everyone's willing to limit themselves to stuff like in the picture just because of such extreme viewpoints

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:34 No.16600495

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:34 No.16600495

>waaah everything is black and white, lines in the sand arguments everywhere.

Holy shit how do these people survive?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:34 No.16600496

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:34 No.16600496

Replies: >>16600578

>>16600403

You know that 'encoding' is an arbitrary distinction right?

With XOR encoding and deconding, any number is encodable to a number of equal length, right?

So if 'encoded by a specific arrangement of number' then a number of any length is equivalent to any number of equal length so if I own any really long number I could own any number less long that than since said number would be a substring of my number,

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:34 No.16600501

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:34 No.16600501

>>16600357
you're not willing to spend it though. otherwise there's really no need to be so defensive about piracy

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:34 No.16600515

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:34 No.16600515

Replies: >>16600571

>>16600425

That is not a counter-argument. That simply stated a fact.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:34 No.16600521

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:34 No.16600521

>>16600368

Property rights, generally, require line drawing.

People support IP laws that incentivise innovation. IP laws protecting a random sequence of numbers does not incentivise innovation.

Basically all laws require line drawing.

Where to draw the line is a separate discussion as to whether or not IP laws could be used to incentivise innovation.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:35 No.16600529

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:35 No.16600529

Property is theft.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:35 No.16600530

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:35 No.16600530

Replies: >>16600922

>>16600373
back then they were still selling the hardware, no way you could run a business today giving a way games for free

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:35 No.16600533

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:35 No.16600533

Replies: >>16600634

>>16600379
>Depends on the information and whether it constitutes a creative work.

So what constitutes 'creative work'

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:35 No.16600538

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:35 No.16600538

>>16600368
No. But if you write a book composed entirely of numbers that have a meaning besides a numerical value, that work is protected.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:35 No.16600543

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:35 No.16600543

Everything can be done through kickstarter

>Every argument for IP laws defeated in 6 words

/thread

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:36 No.16600571

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:36 No.16600571

Replies: >>16600700

>>16600515
>That is not a counter-argument.

It is not a counter-argument that it greatly de-incentivized the creation of such content and copyright can thus be considered a sound law?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:36 No.16600578

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:36 No.16600578

Replies: >>16600809

>>16600496
But what meaning does the number have?

If it's just a random string of numbers, no, you can't own it.

If it's a string of numbers that encodes a novel someone wrote (and you don't have the rights to) and you try to sell that string of numbers and go "hurr durr it's just numbers lel" then everyone knows it's not the numbers you're selling, it's the novel that matters.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:37 No.16600584

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:37 No.16600584

Replies: >>16600642

>>16600351
So I think >>16599496, because copyright law has been taken to ridiculous extremes in the real world.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:37 No.16600591

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:37 No.16600591

>>16598418
Wow

>>16598515
Wow

>>16598978
>fan art
fucking kill yourself

>>16598827
autism
autism everywhere, fuck some of you guys are uncreative twats. hurry I want everything that everyone else has!11 you don't own that11 WE ALL OWN DAT!

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:37 No.16600604

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:37 No.16600604

>>16598870
>be no copyrights
>spend a year writing book
>put book on Amazon for $5
>lazy anon steals book, no copyrights
>puts my book up for sale as ebook for 99 cents
>steals all my customers

>I never bother to write another book again, no point.

It WAS going to be a trilogy...not any more, fans.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:38 No.16600618

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:38 No.16600618

Replies: >>16600714

>>16600362
>Why should someone oppose something simply because it requires "a line in the sand"?

Because line-in-the-sand argument requires an arbitrary line in the sand that can be shifted in order to fulfill the mental gymnastics requirement of its proponent and to avoid counter-argument and counter-example.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:38 No.16600623

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:38 No.16600623

Replies: >>16600685

i believe that no one should profit of others' work, ie selling pirated copies of a game, ripping off an author's work and selling it as your own, etc, should be illegal. But I see no problem at all with people using these copies for personal use.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:38 No.16600634

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:38 No.16600634

>>16600533
I'm sure there is a legal definition out there, but in lay terms, original and different from any work owned by any other person (ie not a derivative work unless it is a parody)

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:39 No.16600642

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:39 No.16600642

Replies: >>16600901

>>16600584
Yes

the problem is that the ones trying to make some additional shekels are usually much more involved than the regular joe. so it's usually only a debate over some very catering law or none.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:39 No.16600651

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:39 No.16600651

Replies: >>16600688 >>16600731 >>16600756 >>16600845

Writer here. I've written prolifically whilst holding a job full time.

>What why would you do that?

Because I have ideas I want to get out there, regardless of being paid for them. Checkmate.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:39 No.16600660

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:39 No.16600660

Replies: >>16600760

>>16600440

Then that is not 'in fixed space'

the story is an arrangement of letters. it doesn't have a fixed spatial position, unlike say a statue.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:40 No.16600680

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:40 No.16600680

>>16598276 (OP)
No - the only people that are able to make use of them are enormous corporations. It's a set of regulations that are designed for no purpose other than to impede class mobility.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:40 No.16600685

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:40 No.16600685

Replies: >>16600763

>>16600623
>But I see no problem at all with people using these copies for personal use.
that's because you like doing so yourself

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:40 No.16600688

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:40 No.16600688

Replies: >>16600722

>>16600651
How would you feel about me transcribing your work and selling it for 99 cents a copy? PS: you don't see any of the money and I don't ask you for permission.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:40 No.16600690

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:40 No.16600690

I am poor as hell and only make enough money to pay my bills, put food on the table and smoke a few blunts every now then. I'm pretty content with being a slave wage because I can enjoy tons and tons of media for free. ergo this is good for capitalism

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:40 No.16600692

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:40 No.16600692

Yes, but I'm an IP lawyer so I don't have a disinterested opinion.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:40 No.16600700

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:40 No.16600700

Replies: >>16600860

>>16600571

You didnt' make that argument, you stated a fact.

You can't just say "cute cat" and presume that other people will construe that as an argument against animal cruelty.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:41 No.16600714

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:41 No.16600714

Replies: >>16600745

>>16600618
Welcome to human society.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:41 No.16600722

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:41 No.16600722

Replies: >>16600779

>>16600688
People wouldn't buy it as it's free work. I am a creator, and I create for the people.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:41 No.16600731

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:41 No.16600731

>>16600651
>everyone must be okay with this
>#checkmate

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:42 No.16600742

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:42 No.16600742

>>16598551
It solves the free rider problem when inventions are difficult to create but easy to copy.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:42 No.16600745

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:42 No.16600745

Replies: >>16600788

>>16600714

Not an argument.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:42 No.16600756

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:42 No.16600756

>>16600651
Nobody cares if you give away your own work, but you have no right to insist others must give away theirs.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:42 No.16600760

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:42 No.16600760

Replies: >>16600832

>>16600660
I mean fixed in a physical form, ie, not in your mind.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:42 No.16600763

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:42 No.16600763

Replies: >>16600805

>>16600685
No, it's because the creator doesn't lose anything in that case. in fact, if the product is good enough, having tried it out and being satisfied, many people have no problems buying the product to support the creator.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:42 No.16600779

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:42 No.16600779

Replies: >>16600818 >>16600866 >>16600873

>>16600722
Ah, so you're a shitty writer who couldn't get any money for his autismal shitscribbles, and as a result thinks nobody should be able to make money writing. Noted.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:42 No.16600782

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:42 No.16600782

Replies: >>16600807

Solution to piracy.

Establish a national "Entertainment Media" fund.
Release everything for free download through official channels.
Pay content creators out of the fund based on the number of people who download their shit.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:43 No.16600788

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:43 No.16600788

>>16600745
Just about everything complicated (particularly political matters) involve lines in the sand. Almost nothing is a straight yes or no in all cases.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:43 No.16600805

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:43 No.16600805

Replies: >>16600828 >>16600908

>>16600763
>No, it's because the creator doesn't lose anything in that case.
He loses the money you could've paid

>in fact, if the product is good enough, having tried it out and being satisfied, many people have no problems buying the product to support the creator.
donation system, cool
no one should be forced to live from donations if the product is popular though.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:43 No.16600807

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:43 No.16600807

>>16600782
>piracy
This is an IP law thread and IP law has nothing to do with piracy, why do you bring it up?

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:43 No.16600809

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:43 No.16600809

>>16600578
>But what meaning does the number have?

per your encoding argument, it means everything.

>If it's just a random string of numbers, no, you can't own it.

Define random, hint: you can't.

>If it's a string of numbers that encodes a novel someone wrote

define encode. hint: words don't mean what you think they mean

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:44 No.16600818

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:44 No.16600818

Replies: >>16600905

>>16600779
The money is not important to me. What's important to me is my vision and letting other people know about it. I put that out there for free, and am happy to do so. Every author with a vision or message will happily do as I do.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:44 No.16600822

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:44 No.16600822

>>16598849
It takes time to copy fashion designs, so there is still a first mover advantage to innovating. There would not be any innovative pharmaceuticals without patents.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:44 No.16600828

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:44 No.16600828

>>16600805
>He loses the money you could've paid
No he doesn't, you still may pay it and buy a copy later.

However if you bought a copy earlier from some libertarian thief, THEN he loses the money you could've paid, because you've already paid it to someone else.

Anonymous
07/04/13(Thu)09:44 No.16600832

Anonymous 07/04/13(Thu)09:44 No.16600832

>>16600760
but my mind is a physical form since it is a manifestation of my neuronal state.