Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 30.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hawker on October 10, 2011, 05:29:35 PM

Quote from: Rassah on October 10, 2011, 05:26:06 PM

Based on his statemente in the abortion Thread, Hawker doesn't even understand what is moral, or where morals and rights come from. His idea is that rights come from the government, or from what people feel is right. So trying to discuss this from the point of view of morals is pointless, since, yes, a few hundred years ago, he would've been defending slavery because it was legal = is was moral.

So would you. The idea of slavery being immoral is relatively new and just as 1000 years ago, we would not have discussed air fares, we would also not have discussed the abolition of slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

I would have only out of ignorance. Once I had been pointed out that slaves have the same felings and wants as non-slaves, I.e. not been ignorant any more, I would not have supported slavery no matter how beneficial it is to the economy and non-slaves. I currently support things like gay rights, rights for women to receive equal pay, rights of immigrants and non us citizens, etc, all things that currently still run contrary to US law, and I support them despite the law saying I shouldn't.
To go even further, I promise you I will support the rights of clones, intelligent robots, intelligent human-animal hybrids, human cyborgs, and intelligent aliens, even if the laws passed said they should have no rights because they are not "human." I fully suspect those on your side will be the ones passing those laws, and denying those people rights, just as they were denying the rights of blacks, irish, jews, women, gays, transgendereds, non-christians/muslims, atheists, immigrants, etc. etc. etc.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Rassah on October 10, 2011, 05:26:06 PM

Based on his statemente in the abortion Thread, Hawker doesn't even understand what is moral, or where morals and rights come from. His idea is that rights come from the government, or from what people feel is right. So trying to discuss this from the point of view of morals is pointless, since, yes, a few hundred years ago, he would've been defending slavery because it was legal = is was moral.

So would you. The idea of slavery being immoral is relatively new and just as 1000 years ago, we would not have discussed air fares, we would also not have discussed the abolition of slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: BitterTea on October 10, 2011, 03:38:28 PM

Quote from: Hawker on October 10, 2011, 03:33:45 PM

I believe that we have a right to choose as a society. If you seek a change that takes that choice away, you need to convince the majority of people its a good idea. Otherwise a minority could argue they want slavery back and you'd be saying we should listen to them.

Except IP law removes my choice of how to use my property because you say that you have a greater claim to your idea than I do to my property.

"IP law allows for the production of movies that I like" = "slavery allows for the production of cotton that I like"

You're making multitudes of logical fallacies, the main ones being...

Just because movies you like are made with IP law doesn't mean the only way movies you like can be made is with IP law.

Just because something is currently accepted by society, doesn't mean it is right, good, or moral. See: slavery. The Greeks couldn't even imagine a society without slavery, it doesn't change the fact slavery is immoral.

Based on his statemente in the abortion Thread, Hawker doesn't even understand what is moral, or where morals and rights come from. His idea is that rights come from the government, or from what people feel is right. So trying to discuss this from the point of view of morals is pointless, since, yes, a few hundred years ago, he would've been defending slavery because it was legal = is was moral.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: BitterTea on October 10, 2011, 04:44:29 PM

Quote from: Hawker on October 10, 2011, 04:39:03 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 10, 2011, 04:27:29 PM

...snip...
They didn't elect to have such burdens placed upon them so that you can have a privilege of an income. And the irony of your choice of words is not lost on myself.

Correct - they tolerate it because they like movies and jobs. As do I. And absent a democratic mandate, I don't think those benefits should be taken away.

Southerners (and many Northerners) tolerated slavery because they liked cotton and jobs. Absent a democratic mandate, the North used violence against the South (while allowing border states to keep their slaves in return for their allegiance) to take away the benefits of slavery to which they were entitled. This all follows your logic, and the conclusion is that the abolition of slavery in the United States was morally wrong.

I hope this shows anyone on the fence that Hawker's logic is ridiculous.

You really don't know your history do you? Abolitionists were a solid majority from the 1830s but the fear of Civil War meant that they didn't act. In the end, the violent minority, Southern slave owners, went to war because they could not accept the result of the 1860 election. The North had a democratic mandate. It was fury at that mandate that caused the Secession.

How can you not know this?

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: Hawker on October 10, 2011, 04:39:03 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 10, 2011, 04:27:29 PM

...snip...
They didn't elect to have such burdens placed upon them so that you can have a privilege of an income. And the irony of your choice of words is not lost on myself.

Correct - they tolerate it because they like movies and jobs. As do I. And absent a democratic mandate, I don't think those benefits should be taken away.

Southerners (and many Northerners) tolerated slavery because they liked cotton and jobs. Absent a democratic mandate, the North used violence against the South (while allowing border states to keep their slaves in return for their allegiance) to take away the benefits of slavery to which they were entitled. This all follows your logic, and the conclusion is that the abolition of slavery in the United States was morally wrong.

I hope this shows anyone on the fence that Hawker's logic is ridiculous.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 10, 2011, 04:27:29 PM

...snip...
They didn't elect to have such burdens placed upon them so that you can have a privilege of an income. And the irony of your choice of words is not lost on myself.

Correct - they tolerate it because they like movies and jobs. As do I. And absent a democratic mandate, I don't think those benefits should be taken away.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: Hawker on October 10, 2011, 04:23:00 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 10, 2011, 04:20:18 PM

Quote from: Hawker on October 10, 2011, 04:13:14 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 10, 2011, 04:02:20 PM

...snip...

I'd be willing to bet that the average adult, if polled, has no idea that there are laws that criminalize sharing.

That average adult is the guy you want to improve the life of. He likely works in a company that uses trademarks as part of its business strategy. He may like movies. Removing IP laws will hurt him and as you say, the IP laws as they stand never interfere with him.

And that changes the argument, how? Even if I accepted that your view was correct, and that the only way to improve the lives of the ignorant was to do so by imposing force upon them as a group, how does that change the argument that you don't have the right to do so?

You can educate the "ignorant" - you don't have a right to overrule their choices in elections. That would lead to slavery - people said it was needed to protect black people from themselves.

They didn't elect to have such burdens placed upon them so that you can have a privilege of an income. And the irony of your choice of words is not lost on myself.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 10, 2011, 04:20:18 PM

Quote from: Hawker on October 10, 2011, 04:13:14 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 10, 2011, 04:02:20 PM

...snip...

I'd be willing to bet that the average adult, if polled, has no idea that there are laws that criminalize sharing.

That average adult is the guy you want to improve the life of. He likely works in a company that uses trademarks as part of its business strategy. He may like movies. Removing IP laws will hurt him and as you say, the IP laws as they stand never interfere with him.

And that changes the argument, how? Even if I accepted that your view was correct, and that the only way to improve the lives of the ignorant was to do so by imposing force upon them as a group, how does that change the argument that you don't have the right to do so?

You can educate the "ignorant" - you don't have a right to overrule their choices in elections. That would lead to slavery - people said it was needed to protect black people from themselves.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: Hawker on October 10, 2011, 04:13:14 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 10, 2011, 04:02:20 PM

...snip...

I'd be willing to bet that the average adult, if polled, has no idea that there are laws that criminalize sharing.

That average adult is the guy you want to improve the life of. He likely works in a company that uses trademarks as part of its business strategy. He may like movies. Removing IP laws will hurt him and as you say, the IP laws as they stand never interfere with him.

And that changes the argument, how? Even if I accepted that your view was correct, and that the only way to improve the lives of the ignorant was to do so by imposing force upon them as a group, how does that change the argument that you don't have the right to do so?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 10, 2011, 04:02:20 PM

...snip...

I'd be willing to bet that the average adult, if polled, has no idea that there are laws that criminalize sharing.

That average adult is the guy you want to improve the life of. He likely works in a company that uses trademarks as part of its business strategy. He may like movies. Removing IP laws will hurt him and as you say, the IP laws as they stand never interfere with him.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: Hawker on October 10, 2011, 03:48:46 PM

Quote from: BitterTea on October 10, 2011, 03:38:28 PM

Quote from: Hawker on October 10, 2011, 03:33:45 PM

I believe that we have a right to choose as a society. If you seek a change that takes that choice away, you need to convince the majority of people its a good idea. Otherwise a minority could argue they want slavery back and you'd be saying we should listen to them.

Except IP law removes my choice of how to use my property because you say that you have a greater claim to your idea than I do to my property.

"IP law allows for the production of movies that I like" = "slavery allows for the production of cotton that I like"

You're making multitudes of logical fallacies, the main ones being...

Just because movies you like are made with IP law doesn't mean the only way movies you like can be made is with IP law.

Just because something is currently accepted by society, doesn't mean it is right, good, or moral. See: slavery. The Greeks couldn't even imagine a society without slavery, it doesn't change the fact slavery is immoral.

And if someone proposes that slavery be re-introduced, I will join with you in opposing it.

If it ever is, it won't be called that by it's proponents, only it's opposition. I might be called something cryptic like "Organic Property" and require dozens of laws establishing different aspects of privilages for certain citizens over the free will and existing propery law of the remainder of citizens. Over a period of time, these same laws become entrenched into certain industries where they are adopted first, and proponents insist that those monopoly privileges established and enforced by government are "rights" dispite the fact that the average 8 year old has a decent understanding of what is actually right and wrong, yet these laws don't make sense to the average adult.

Ask an 8 year old if he takes his neighbors bicycle without permission is wrong, and then ask that same child if borrowing a (legitimate) copy of his best friend's latest Xbox game with the owner's permission is wrong; and take note of the differences in response. Just because you consider copyright to be your right, doesn't mean that it's actually right.

I'd be willing to bet that the average adult, if polled, has no idea that there are laws that criminalize sharing.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: BitterTea on October 10, 2011, 03:38:28 PM

Quote from: Hawker on October 10, 2011, 03:33:45 PM

I believe that we have a right to choose as a society. If you seek a change that takes that choice away, you need to convince the majority of people its a good idea. Otherwise a minority could argue they want slavery back and you'd be saying we should listen to them.

Except IP law removes my choice of how to use my property because you say that you have a greater claim to your idea than I do to my property.

"IP law allows for the production of movies that I like" = "slavery allows for the production of cotton that I like"

You're making multitudes of logical fallacies, the main ones being...

Just because movies you like are made with IP law doesn't mean the only way movies you like can be made is with IP law.

Just because something is currently accepted by society, doesn't mean it is right, good, or moral. See: slavery. The Greeks couldn't even imagine a society without slavery, it doesn't change the fact slavery is immoral.

And if someone proposes that slavery be re-introduced, I will join with you in opposing it.

Now we have that out of the way, there is a choice you allude to: society has to choose between your freedom to copy movies and its freedom to finance movies in the way it chooses. Unless you have a viable business model that ensures that we still get movies in our cinemas every weekend, its unlikely you will persuade people to change the system.

Movies are only one example of this problem. Earlier in the thread we looked at branded consumer goods and industrial research. Both would be greatly reduced by removing IP laws. And unless you are proposing that the minority who want to be able to copy other people's work have some right over the rest of society, you need to offer better business models than what already exists if you want to persuade people to change the system.

The anti-slavery abolitionists did that... they focused on winning elections and making slavery illegal.

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: Hawker on October 10, 2011, 03:33:45 PM

I believe that we have a right to choose as a society. If you seek a change that takes that choice away, you need to convince the majority of people its a good idea. Otherwise a minority could argue they want slavery back and you'd be saying we should listen to them.

Except IP law removes my choice of how to use my property because you say that you have a greater claim to your idea than I do to my property.

"IP law allows for the production of movies that I like" = "slavery allows for the production of cotton that I like"

You're making multitudes of logical fallacies, the main ones being...

Just because movies you like are made with IP law doesn't mean the only way movies you like can be made is with IP law.

Just because something is currently accepted by society, doesn't mean it is right, good, or moral. See: slavery. The Greeks couldn't even imagine a society without slavery, it doesn't change the fact slavery is immoral.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: BitterTea on October 10, 2011, 03:14:55 PM

...pointless drivel snipped...

Quote from: Hawker on October 10, 2011, 01:54:33 PM

Anyway, with respect, you have no right to impose your tastes on the rest of the world. People freely choose what movies to watch and and any replacement to the current system has to still allow that freedom. Otherwise, its not an improvement.

Yet, because of your taste for "hollywood movies" (the current system), you believe it is right to impose IP law on others. Hypocritical much?

I believe that we have a right to choose as a society. If you seek a change that takes that choice away, you need to convince the majority of people its a good idea. Otherwise a minority could argue they want slavery back and you'd be saying we should listen to them.

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: Hawker on October 10, 2011, 01:54:33 PM

The fact that it needed more than that to break even gives you a clue how important box office sales are. Without that $27 million, the makers would have taken a loss.

To beat a dead horse... "The fact that it needed more than that to break even gives you a clue how important slavery is. Without those cotton sales, the plantation owners would have taken a loss."

Quote from: Hawker on October 10, 2011, 01:54:33 PM

Anyway, with respect, you have no right to impose your tastes on the rest of the world. People freely choose what movies to watch and and any replacement to the current system has to still allow that freedom. Otherwise, its not an improvement.

Yet, because of your taste for "hollywood movies" (the current system), you believe it is right to impose IP law on others. Hypocritical much?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Rassah on October 10, 2011, 01:09:44 PM

I liked Dark City. That cost a lot to make, and made almost no money in the theaters, but still made money in the end from a lot of people who were shown the movie by die hard fans, who later when out and bought DVDs. It's also readily availble for download on torrents. I own both, a DVD and a downloaded copy.
It's pretty... um... insane I guess? that, when I said that a lot of the "millions of dollars" just goes to extremely overpaid actors, and that in a more competitive movie economy actors would get paid normal wages and movies won't cost millions of dollars, your reply was, "but movies cost millions of dollars!"

Almost no money? It took $27 million at box office: http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=darkcity.htm

The fact that it needed more than that to break even gives you a clue how important box office sales are. Without that $27 million, the makers would have taken a loss.

Anyway, with respect, you have no right to impose your tastes on the rest of the world. People freely choose what movies to watch and and any replacement to the current system has to still allow that freedom. Otherwise, its not an improvement.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

You are wrong about slavery but its boring to remind you of facts. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/disunion/ is a good place to start.

Quote from: BitterTea on October 10, 2011, 11:39:02 AM

...snip...

Have you heard of independent films? How about the Sundance Film Festival? You make this too easy, really.

They are dependent on ability to get paid. How does that make it easy?

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

I liked Dark City. That cost a lot to make, and made almost no money in the theaters, but still made money in the end from a lot of people who were shown the movie by die hard fans, who later when out and bought DVDs. It's also readily availble for download on torrents. I own both, a DVD and a downloaded copy.
It's pretty... um... insane I guess? that, when I said that a lot of the "millions of dollars" just goes to extremely overpaid actors, and that in a more competitive movie economy actors would get paid normal wages and movies won't cost millions of dollars, your reply was, "but movies cost millions of dollars!"

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: Hawker on October 10, 2011, 11:23:25 AM

Actually by the time of the Civil War, the abolition of slavery in the West Indies by the British had proved that paying wages worked just fine

Just as the use of alternative methods of film financing proves that IP laws are not necessary in order to finance films.

Quote from: Hawker on October 10, 2011, 11:23:25 AM

so your analogy is historically inaccurate.

Only if you believe that the abolition of slavery in the West Indies convinced everyone that slavery was no longer necessary.

Quote from: Hawker on October 10, 2011, 11:23:25 AM

However, even if it was actually accurate, you would still be labouring under the delusion that because one group of people got one issue wrong once, then everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

Incorrect. The form the analogy takes is this:

X is a social institution that is argued, by those to which it is beneficial, to be necessary for the greater good of all
X is known to not actually be necessary, and in fact detrimental to a much larger group

Quote from: Hawker on October 10, 2011, 11:23:25 AM

So, wrong on the facts and wrong on the logic.

I find it hilarious that you lecture me about logic.

Quote from: Hawker on October 10, 2011, 11:23:25 AM

Lets see what kind of films get made by your ideas and if they compare to Hollywood. Its one of those "proof of the pudding is in the eating" situations.

Have you heard of independent films? How about the Sundance Film Festival? You make this too easy, really.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: BitterTea on October 10, 2011, 10:13:12 AM

Quote from: Hawker on October 10, 2011, 09:51:17 AM

Nice ideas. And they don't need an either/or approach. If they take off, IP laws are not needed for movies. If they don't, then some other transmission mechanism is needed for cash to movie makers before we remove IP protection.

"Nice ideas. And they don't need an either/or approach. If they take off, slavery is not needed for cotton. If they don't, then some other picking mechanism is needed for cash to cotton growers before we remove slavery."

Actually by the time of the Civil War, the abolition of slavery in the West Indies by the British had proved that paying wages worked just fine, so your analogy is historically inaccurate. However, even if it was actually accurate, you would still be labouring under the delusion that because one group of people got one issue wrong once, then everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

So, wrong on the facts and wrong on the logic.

Lets see what kind of films get made by your ideas and if they compare to Hollywood. Its one of those "proof of the pudding is in the eating" situations.

Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 30. (Read 105899 times)