Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 37. (Read 105900 times)

http://www.showcasecinemas.co.uk/showtimes/default.asp?selectTheatre=8509

Is that enough counter examples?

As I said, if IP laws are not needed for movies, you'd see copyleft movies replacing Hollywood ones.  That's how a market works.  At the moment you don't see that so it looks like copyleft films are not that popular.

And, again, you completely failed to present a counter example.  Why are you here?

That's one person.  There is a free market in movies - anyone can make one.  But all the good ones are made by firms that protect their IP.  If you are correct, there is no need to change the law as the copyleft movies will drive the expensive copyrighted movie makers out of business.

I say this not to prove you wrong btw - my point is that we don't need to take one another's arguments as being based on faith alone.  The market is working right now telling us what kind of movies people like.

How?  Because you believe you would lose a sale?  The reverse is likely true, young people share copies of all kinds of media, but tend to grow loyal to the media companies that don't treat them like criminals.  You don't have to make it easy, no one has anything against charging a fee for the convience of, for example, VALVe's Steam software.  And Steam is a beautiful example of a company that does not treat their customers like criminals.  Team Fortress 2 was about $50 two years ago.  Two months ago it was $10.  Today it's free, if you are getting it directly via Steam servers.  Why?  Because it's a very popular game, and in order for young adults to get it free, they have to install (also free) Steam on their machine.  And then VALVe gets to advertise directly to your Steam account.  When you get a job, and finally have money to spend, where are you going to get your PC games then?  Are you going to trudge down to the store and buy a retail CD box set, or walk into your living room and order it through the Steam interface that you already have?  If you are dependent upon the monopoly for your revenue, your business model is wrong. 


VALVe isn't dependent upon IP protection for revenue, although I'm sure that they would swing that stick if some major operation were to pop up making profits off of their work.  That short video that I linked to was produced by an independent film maker who used to believe that copyright laws protected artists, until she independently produced a full-length cartoon movie, and couldn't release it for sale because the basket of licenses required would have cost her $50K more than what it cost to produce the movie to begin with.  In the end, she released the movie several years after it was finished, but for no charge.  She can never charge any money for that magnum opus, yet she still manages to earn a living releasing her art as copyleft licensed work.


That is an unproven claim. You don't get to state it as a given.  I've already provided two real world and current examples of business models that can and do work sans a copyright monopoly, without even trying.  You need to at least match that to be taken seriously.

Taking away the benefits of IP law without offering something better would be unjust.  So if we strive for perfection, we will never do that.

I pay people to make software.  I sell the software.  If you copy it and redistribute it for free, it does harm me.

The real question is whether it matters.  Is society harmed?  I make cheats for games so society would cope just fine if I went out of business.  But, without IP protection, the game makers themselves would also be wiped and that would be a loss.  Likewise movies totally depend on IP protection.  And then you get onto industrial research which again would be a waste of tiem if you could not protect your discoveries.  

So there are things that society values which the loss of IP law would result in society losing.  In order for that to happen, you need to offer something that is better.  Otherwise its pointless to change.

Follow my logic then.

GIVEN:

Nobody is perfect.
If no one is perfect, then people may make mistakes.
If mistakes happen, some laws will be unjust.
If some laws are unjust, those laws may cause harm.
If some laws cause harm, we should rescind unjust laws.
If we rescind unjust laws, fewer mistakes may occur.
If there are less mistakes, there may be more justice.
If there is more justice, there may be more perfection.
We should strive for perfection.

Given the above, apply that to IP law and reconcile it with private property law.

IP aren't rights, they are a protected monopoly.  Explain how, in the absence of that explict force of government, I do you harm by copying your ideas?  Do I prevent you from using your own ideas, like I do if I take your bike?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB0QtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DIeTybKL1pM4&ei=5ceMTtnCOaXJsQLnsOSaBA&usg=AFQjCNEDg7_ap8otqvRJxjUWZn4Bw2kP7g

You were all about society but now you're talking about your personal gain.

For the same reason we don't rescind land law.  You can't take property of people on a whim.  You have to make a logical case, get it voted through and then implement it.  So far your issue is the lack of a logical case.  I don't see what I gain in return for losing my income from from trademarks and copyrights.

So why don't we rescind IP law and find out? With monopoly or without, a question for the ages? The only way to know is to try it.

Again its a balance of harms thing.  The good IP brings is more important than the loss of the ability of someone else to make free copies.  Its not hard to choose the good option here.  If you disagree, its not enough to point out that there is a price to be paid.  You need to demonstrate that the price is too high or else its an easy decision to take the goodies that come from IP.
 

If you were to attempt take it from me, you'd find out how attached it really is. I make no distinction whatsoever. Were not talking biologically attached, no doubt, but I could really care less.

Intellectual property rights are an excellent example of the interdependence between the content of the creator and the physical property owned by others. It is equivalent to theft, coercion and censorship.

Literally, not as attached as your are to your thumb

What if I had a thumb drive with a million bitcoin on it? I might be very attached to it.

Intellectual property rights are an excellent example of interdependence between the content and the creator.

We don't need to offer anything.  You are the one who wants to take away intellectual property rights.  Offer something to justify the loss or accept that your position will never be adopted.

I don't know why I even bother talking to either of you. I think I'll stop wasting my time since you've both clearly got nothing of substance to offer.

Um its true.  Not an argument.

And just like thumb drives, society gives you ownership of intellectual property.  Both are examples of ideas that people created in order to make life better.