Because people seem to think they deserve to get paid for using their brain.
Why do people not see copy-right infringement as stealing?
- Thread starter SerriaFox
- Start date
Because people seem to think they deserve to get paid for using their brain.
holy king
Deity
ayn rand's feudalism FTW!
Mise
isle of lucy
Interesting to hear a libertarian perspective on it. I think his opening statements struck a cord with me: (a) that the people creating the laws don't really know anything about the laws they're creating or the problem that the laws are supposed to be solving, and (b) that the people who are punished by the laws are the people who are simply bad at downloading stuff (e.g. the mother of 3 who torrented 9 songs or something and was fined millions of dollars for it). That made me want to watch the rest of it, despite my rule about never listening to libertarians.
I was also impressed by his ability to distinguish between different industries. I think it's very important that we distinguish between IP in the entertainment industry and IP in the pharmaceuticals industry. If we disincentivise IP creation in entertainment, and that results in less entertainment being created, then I doubt anybody would care that much, or even notice at all. There is already more music in the world than I will ever be able to listen to in my lifetime; more films that I haven't seen than I will ever see; etc. But if we stopped making life-saving drugs or technologies, then that would truly be a disaster; there is simply more at stake here. I don't see why we need to protect the entertainment industry with the same fervour as the pharmaceuticals industry. It doesn't make sense to me, and pursuing people who download music merely undermines the concept of intellectual property more generally, to the point where people here are questioning the need for IP laws in pharmaceuticals industries. It's dangerous and irresponsible.
No it isn't. Counterfeiting is passing off an imperfect copy as if it were the original, and in doing so ripping off the consumer. It applies to physical things who's origin adds value to the work, and so a knock off copy is worth less to the consumer by virtue of being a fake. This is not what happens with violations of copyright. A consumer is not ripped off by being presented with a knock off. The consumer receives an equally valuable copy as the original.
Violations of trademark law could quality as counterfeiting, but those are less disputed.
carmen510
Deity
Let me elaborate: If you commit copyright infringement, then the legal system and a significant portion of society would not accept the argument that you simply don't believe in property rights. I didn't mean to imply that all people who believed that were thieves.
Well, to be more accurate, it isn't exactly theft, but it is infringing on the copyright holder's exclusive rights to IP without authorization; I guess "trespassing" would be a more accurate term. Besides instances of abandonware though, I can't really imagine any case of copyright infringement that could be justifiable.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Behold the magic of this thread : you don't have to imagine anymore, you just have to read it !
And don't worry, we won't ask you to pay royalties for it.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Fair use rights
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
In the United States, patents and copyrights are legally justified allowed only by this clause in the U.S. Constitution
It should be noted that a couple terms have shifted in meaning since the document was passed. Science then referred to all fields of knowledge (including history, economics, and theology as well as chemistry and physics), and Art referred to the technical skills of Artisans rather than the the creative works of Artists.
There can really be no doubt that Pharmaceuticals count as a useful art and science, but I have serous doubts that most of what we call entertainment really qualifies to receive any such protections.
There is also nothing in the Constitution that says that patents or copyrights should be transferable. Our modern system where copyrights on music last 95 year after the composer's death would seem very strange indeed to the founding fathers, in whose time the legal monopolies allowed by the constitution never lasted more than 10 years.
U.S. Constitution said:
It should be noted that a couple terms have shifted in meaning since the document was passed. Science then referred to all fields of knowledge (including history, economics, and theology as well as chemistry and physics), and Art referred to the technical skills of Artisans rather than the the creative works of Artists.
There can really be no doubt that Pharmaceuticals count as a useful art and science, but I have serous doubts that most of what we call entertainment really qualifies to receive any such protections.
There is also nothing in the Constitution that says that patents or copyrights should be transferable. Our modern system where copyrights on music last 95 year after the composer's death would seem very strange indeed to the founding fathers, in whose time the legal monopolies allowed by the constitution never lasted more than 10 years.
Similar threads
