Dirty pirate scum: 0, Righteous pirate fighters: 1

[Lord Baal]

delete

 

[warpus]

I'm more concerned about pesky humans lving longer than another copyright extension. It hasn't been extended in a while.

Actually, the last time it was extended was in 1998, so not that long ago. And if history is any indication, they will be extended again just before the deadline.

Not sure how you could argue that this is a good thing - it's essentially the holders of the copyrights pushing their money at the right people just so that they can make even more money, making a bit of a mockery of the whole system in the process.

 

[Takhisis]

So what? Who cares? What does it matter what the price of Cinderella is? No one is being harmed by Disney's release strategy. Having something simply cost more isn't a crime against humanity.

Personally I think that Disney having four or five channels across Latin America (does ESPN count?) is a crime against humanity, but that's another thing.

Now, when it's about quality stuff, such as, for example, The Sopranos… Cinemax/HBO has decided that we dirty Dagos in our forgotten little corner of the world only deserve to see the first three seasons of the series. For some reason.

Then don't avail yourself of it. That's not really that hard of a thing to do.

C'mon, that's not how it always works. Market pressure sometimes means an inordinately expensive product has to be used. What do you do in that case?

(That's another reason to get Linux, too. Windows' monopoly has made free software viable!)

As far as the length of copyrights, I'm far more forgiving of that than I am patent length extensions. Copyright I kind of get, though I would be more inclined to go with something like "50 years or life of creator, whichever is greater." That way a guy writing something in his 70s still has some protection for his heirs, but if someone wrote and published something when they were 20 but lived to be 100, they were covered until they died, but then it immediately goes public domain after they croak. That seems reasonable.

That said, the law is what the law is and even if I think it is unreasonable, that's just my personal view and it doesn't change the law.

But you can change the law.
What do you mean you can't? It's 'We the people', right? If there's a new way, you'll be the first in line.

 

[Zelig]

I don't need to do that. You already did. I've moved on to the real issue here: whether or not Starlight Express exists. Stop dodging the issue and address it.

Not relevant.

Deterrence is only one reason for punishment. Plenty of other reasons exist to punish, such as punishing harms done to society.

I'm not a sadist.

Mischaracterisation. I said that copyright laws have never been about what you claim. Also, has it occurred to you that your opinion of what constitutes a law that is "good for people" may not be an objective fact?

Well yeah, copyright laws are about maximizing profit to large companies.

It has occurred to me, but I think me definition is pretty close, I'm open to alternative definitions.

So what? Who cares? What does it matter what the price of Cinderella is? No one is being harmed by Disney's release strategy. Having something simply cost more isn't a crime against humanity.

Net human enjoyment is being decreased by Disney's release strategy. As we move to a post-scarcity economy, cost of limited goods will become a quaint relic of less fortunate times.

As far as the length of copyrights, I'm far more forgiving of that than I am patent length extensions. Copyright I kind of get, though I would be more inclined to go with something like "50 years or life of creator, whichever is greater." That way a guy writing something in his 70s still has some protection for his heirs, but if someone wrote and published something when they were 20 but lived to be 100, they were covered until they died, but then it immediately goes public domain after they croak. That seems reasonable.

Lesser of 10 years or life of creator seems good to me.

If someone's in his 70s he should probably just assign the IP rights to his heirs to start with.

 

[bhsup]

As we move to a post-scarcity economy

Let me know when they crack star trek replicators.

 

[Lord Baal]

delete

 

[Zelig]

Let me know when they crack star trek replicators.

A 3D printer will be good enough to print myself a shiny new Ferrari.

With the money saved I can even buy a 3D printer, fly to Somalia, buy some bootleg Ferrari blueprints, and fly back with my car and my printer.

 

[bhsup]

/me scampers off to 3D print himself a bowl of chili...

 

[BvBPL]

Not relevant.

Yes, yes it is. Starlight Express is very relevant to the discussion.

Consider: I have a piece of real property that I wish to sell at a certain price so I put it on the market. That price I set for it is not limited by any particular rule. I can charge whatever I want for my land (or at least put it up for sale at that price).

The same is true of any piece of personal property I want to sell. If I want to sell the couch I am sitting on I am within my rights to put it up for sale at whatever I want.

So the rules for tangible property are set. The owner can offer such items for sale at whatever price he deems fit. I am sure people can deliver ready exceptions, but those are just that: exceptions, not the rule.
Now assume that I am, God help me, the producer for a production of Starlight Express and that I am empowered by the production company to set the cost of tickets for the production. I can set those at whatever price I desire. It seems unlikely that any would gainsay my authority to do so.

Let's say I also taped the production and want to sell the video of the production. Ah, now suddenly the hidebound opponent of intellectual property rights says I shouldn't be able to set a price for the video. That it should be as free as the wind-blown snow.

How does this follow? Where is the logic in the idea that I can charge whatever I want for tickets to Starlight Express, but not for the video artifact of the same production? What changed that shifted the visual and auditory record of the production from being something that I could charge for to something that has to be free?

There is no logic and no such change.

Zelig would have us believe that the production of Starlight Express crossed an invisible line that when it was recorded it suddenly and irrevocably entered a free public sphere for all to take and use as their own. How does he justify this? By stating that he arbitrarily doesn't recognize intellectual property as a concept.

Dear reader, if that sounds ridiculous, that's because your sane.

Net human enjoyment is being decreased by Disney's release strategy. As we move to a post-scarcity economy, cost of limited goods will become a quaint relic of less fortunate times.

So what? Net human enjoyment is also decreased by you not going out and picking up trash off the side of the road for 16 hours a day with little compensation.

Oh? You say that's like slavery? Now you know what it is like to work and never see the fruits of your labor because someone else is stealing it.

In any case, "net human enjoyment" is a total red herring. The purpose of intellectual property is not to promote that ephemeral and immeasurable canard. Intellectual property is about individuals having a vested interest in their creative works. Your plead to collectivism is off mark.

 

[Zelig]

Yes, yes it is. Starlight Express is very relevant to the discussion.

Consider: I have a piece of real property that I wish to sell at a certain price so I put it on the market. That price I set for it is not limited by any particular rule. I can charge whatever I want for my land (or at least put it up for sale at that price).

The same is true of any piece of personal property I want to sell. If I want to sell the couch I am sitting on I am within my rights to put it up for sale at whatever I want.

So the rules for tangible property are set. The owner can offer such items for sale at whatever price he deems fit. I am sure people can deliver ready exceptions, but those are just that: exceptions, not the rule.
Now assume that I am, God help me, the producer for a production of Starlight Express and that I am empowered by the production company to set the cost of tickets for the production. I can set those at whatever price I desire. It seems unlikely that any would gainsay my authority to do so.

Let's say I also taped the production and want to sell the video of the production. Ah, now suddenly the hidebound opponent of intellectual property rights says I shouldn't be able to set a price for the video. That it should be as free as the wind-blown snow.

How does this follow? Where is the logic in the idea that I can charge whatever I want for tickets to Starlight Express, but not for the video artifact of the same production? What changed that shifted the visual and auditory record of the production from being something that I could charge for to something that has to be free?

There is no logic and no such change.

Zelig would have us believe that the production of Starlight Express crossed an invisible line that when it was recorded it suddenly and irrevocably entered a free public sphere for all to take and use as their own. How does he justify this? By stating that he arbitrarily doesn't recognize intellectual property as a concept.

Dear reader, if that sounds ridiculous, that's because your sane.

Strawman.

So what? Net human enjoyment is also decreased by you not going out and picking up trash off the side of the road for 16 hours a day with little compensation.

No it isn't.

In any case, "net human enjoyment" is a total red herring. The purpose of intellectual property is not to promote that ephemeral and immeasurable canard. Intellectual property is about individuals having a vested interest in their creative works. Your plead to collectivism is off mark.

The reason we give people a vested interest in their creative work is to incentivize future creative works.

 

[BvBPL]

Strawman.

Easy to say, not so easy to prove.

Saying "strawman" is not some talismanic invocation that absolves you from the debate. It is a cop out. Video taping a production of Starlight Express and then reselling it is not some flight of fancy, but a very reasonable example of happens in life on a daily basis. Therefore, it does not fall within the confines of a strawman.

Nor is it particularly helpful for you to simply invoke the fallacy and leave it at that. Even if you were sufficiently skewed in your thinking to imagine that the about hypothesis was a strawman argument of some sort, why wouldn't you instead point out my errors?

Instead, we are left with a conundrum as to why the reasonable application of your denial of intellectual property rights to the hypothesis is somehow invalid.

Man up and defend your views, rather than pointing at a random page from the Book of Bad Arguments.

The reason we give people a vested interest in their creative work is to incentivize future creative works.

The profits Disney makes off selling copies of Cinderella enable it to make Avengers II. Ergo, allowing Disney to profit from Cinderella fulfills the purpose of intellectual property rights.

 

[Lord Baal]

delete

 

[Zelig]

Easy to say, not so easy to prove.

Saying "strawman" is not some talismanic invocation that absolves you from the debate. It is a cop out. Video taping a production of Starlight Express and then reselling it is not some flight of fancy, but a very reasonable example of happens in life on a daily basis. Therefore, it does not fall within the confines of a strawman.

Nor is it particularly helpful for you to simply invoke the fallacy and leave it at that. Even if you were sufficiently skewed in your thinking to imagine that the about hypothesis was a strawman argument of some sort, why wouldn't you instead point out my errors?

Instead, we are left with a conundrum as to why the reasonable application of your denial of intellectual property rights to the hypothesis is somehow invalid.

Man up and defend your views, rather than pointing at a random page from the Book of Bad Arguments.

You're not attacking my views, there's nothing to defend. That's the point.

The profits Disney makes off selling copies of Cinderella enable it to make Avengers II. Ergo, allowing Disney to profit from Cinderella fulfills the purpose of intellectual property rights.

That's not relevant, the profit from selling slaves would allow me to make all kind of movies, but it's immaterial to whether I should be allowed to sell slaves.

The relevant thing is that the promise of future monetization allowed by IP laws motivates IP to be created which otherwise would not be.

I won't step on BvBPL's toes in relation to the rest of your post, and he makes the same points I would have made - but better - anyway, but this is manifestly wrong.

Your enjoyment might be lessened, but my enjoyment would be heightened, as would anyone else who got to look at nice, non-littered scenery. As such, your sixteen hours of suffering would make the lives of everyone who used that road better, excepting the litterers. From a utilitarian standpoint, which seems to be where you're arguing from, having you pick up all that rubbish is a net increase in human enjoyment.

My enjoyment would probably be decreased more than the combined gain of everyone else.

And the same rules need to apply to everyone anyways, an optimum wouldn't be reached with a single person picking up all the trash. (And you know, the free market works pretty well for this kind of thing, people pay taxes, city pays litter-picker-upper, people get clean scenery.)

 

[BvBPL]

You're not attacking my views, there's nothing to defend. That's the point.

If that were the case, then I'd think you'd value the opportunity to set out your views, rather than have them be presented as best as I am able to infer from your past statements.

But no. We are left with the cryptic assentation that you do not believe in property rights, but no fundamental reasoning as to how you reached this conclusion other than vague proclamation of collectivism, a premise that you yourself reject as the basis for interests in intellectual property.

That's not relevant, the profit from selling slaves would allow me to make all kind of movies, but it's immaterial to whether I should be allowed to sell slaves.

This leaves me to wonder why you would present the reason for intellectual property law if you are going to turn around and stay the very reason you presented is irrelevant.

The relevant thing is that the promise of future monetization allowed by IP laws motivates IP to be created which otherwise would not be.

In other words: Disney uses the profits from the sale of Cinderella to finance Avengers II.

 

[Lord Baal]

delete

 

[Dachs]

So, I learnt today that Zelig, despite spouting nonsense abut how everyone should be treated equally, actually believes in his own exceptionality.

You badly missed the reference.

 

[Kozmos]

The law is probably the most arbitrary thing there is.

 

[Hygro]

So, I learnt today that Zelig, despite spouting nonsense abut how everyone should be treated equally, actually believes in his own exceptionality.

I'm really not sure how that was your conclusion.

 

[Kyriakos]

Maybe the only solution is to have copy protection in all programs, so hard to break that it becomes possible that people who bought them cannot operate them either. Company interest should be above all

Piracy is a form of theft. It is as simple as that.

You wouldn't steal a car.

Or shoot a policeman

 

[Lord Baal]

delete