Topic: Piracy - page 2. (Read 6647 times)

It just hit me. Why would pro-copyright people claim that pirates want to take ownership of other peoples' IP (you're not the first) if pirates don't believe in the concept of intellectual property in the first place?

Summarized:


Or "it's this or that, maybe having to do with politics, and discussion is ongoing, but we think it comes from law or Constitution."

As I said, no understanding of what rights are or where they come from. Or rather, believe rights are things just generally agreed on based on the whims of contemporary culture, and which we commit to paper.

That's fair.  Not giving a shit about infringing on other people's ownership is actually a lot more refreshing than the belief that it's your right to be given that ownership.

That's fair.  Not giving a shit about infringing on other people's ownership is actually a lot more refreshing than the belief that it's your right to be given that ownership.

I own my computer and the electricity that flows through it. I care not if it resembles the matter or energy of another; it is mine. There may be many like it but it is mine. It is in my domain and within my control. I will use it as I please regardless of any ownership claimed by others. My physical property right supersedes. I shall shape it, modify it and utilize it as I please. You shall have no say over its use.

That's what I have to say to intellectual property rights and the like.

What's a right:


Or, the specific type of right to our case, the "Claim Right":


Where rights come from:


And the specific claim right of Copyrights within the United States:

That's a stupid question to ask those people. Only because after 100+ pages on another thread it's been pretty thoroughly established that they don't understand what rights are, let alone where they come from.

"Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. "

"A claim right is a right which entails that another person has a duty to the right-holder. Somebody else must do or refrain from doing something to or for the claim holder, such as perform a service or supply a product for him or her; that is, he or she has a claim to that service or product (another term is thing in action). In logic, this idea can be expressed as: "Person A has a claim that person B do something if and only if B has a duty to A to do that something." Every claim-right entails that some other duty-bearer must do some duty for the claim to be satisfied. This duty can be to act or to refrain from acting.
...
If a person has a claim right against someone else, then that other person's liberty is limited. For example, a person has a liberty right to walk down a sidewalk and can decide freely whether or not to do so, since there is no obligation either to do so or to refrain from doing so. But pedestrians may have an obligation not to walk on certain lands, such as other people's private property, to which those other people have a claim right."

"Politics plays an important role in developing or recognizing the above rights, and the discussion about which behaviors are included as "rights" is an ongoing political topic of importance."

"Copyright law in the United States is part of federal law, and is authorized by the U.S. Constitution. The power to enact copyright law is granted in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, also known as the Copyright Clause, which states:

    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."

Where do you think rights come from?

Well, then you're wrong.  Another person's copyrights don't belong to you.  You can try to convince them to let you use it, but in the end, it's their decision to make.

my personal opinion is... our actual system is purposely flawed to hinder creativity.
The OP commented some pages back on some 10.000 dollars in fees that must be payed by the artists before producing a disc. Where are those money going ? Why they impose them on the artists ? Why the real artists only get a small percentage on the sales ? Lots more unanswered questions...

The thing is in this times will be very difficult to monetize on the distribution channel, so the real artists would have to find some ways to do it by cutting the "middle man" in the process and let people see in advance what are they paying for if they want to make a living on their creations too.

i disagree.

Here's a question though. If someone was selling me a car, and telling me how it has really nice features, is very reliable, and is a lot of fun to drive, but not allowing me to see it, then when I pay, say, $20,000 for it (average car price), it turns out to be an old, beat up, stripped down piece of crap that only goes straight forward and barely moves, is it fair that I am not allowed to return it, and the sales guy is legally allowed to get away with it?

People have the right to utilize their copyrights however they want,

People have the right to utilize their copyrights however they want, and that includes releasing it into the public domain, or under creative commons.  But if they want to control the copyright a little tighter and release it only to people who pay them, like in your commission example, that is also their right, and not yours to just take it.

People have the right to utilize their copyrights however they want, and that includes releasing it into the public domain, or under creative commons.  But if they want to control the copyright a little tighter and release it only to people who pay them, like in your commission example, that is also their right, and not yours to just take it.

I try to make games.

I agree with copyright laws... To some extent.



Someone asked here: Why musicians are "entitled" to be musicians and not have a crap job?

Well, copyright was invented, to solve this, in fact, the first copyright law was a text that stated on it that it was a contract:

Artist and scientist would work full time as artist and scientist, thus making more work for society.

Society would pay that people back.



So, I want to make games... but right now, noone want to pay me for that, so I have another job, and it is so time consuming that I stopped making games. Who loses? Well, everyone. Me, that make no games, and players, that have none of my games to play.

Copyright was SUPPOSED to be a win-win thing, unfortunately, corporations (always them...) screwed things up, specially by making the copyright be author life + lots of time.

Tell me, will Disney (the guy, not the company) create more stuff with the current copyright law? Well... NO, HE IS DEAD.

Or, will Tolkien write more? NO, HE IS FUCKING DEAD.


DEAD PEOPLE DO NOT CREATE.

So, WHY THE HELL COPYRIGHT LASTS WELL AFTER THEY DIE?



That is to start.



So, I think copyright has a good essence, but a really evil implementation. (also the same goes for other IP laws, like patents... software patenting, seriously? Or trademark... with trademark trolls that trademark a common word and whatnot... Although the trademark law is the less broken of those laws, and work fairly well).

I know a lot of artists who draw really well, and put their stuff up online for free. They then take comision requests that they charge money for which they use to live off of. The free art is an advertisement; a demonstration of their skill. The custom job is what they get paid for.  Musicians can, and often do, get paid the same way. They give their music out for free to advertise their skill, a radio station can "hire" their skill if it's good enough, then the radio station pays them to keep producing music while advertising supports them playing it to everyone else for free. Likewise, I keep hearing that big name musicians make mst of their money from actually doing work at concerts as opposed to CD sales.

Here's a question though. If someone was selling me a car, and telling me how it has really nice features, is very reliable, and is a lot of fun to drive, but not allowing me to see it, then when I pay, say, $20,000 for it (average car price), it turns out to be an old, beat up, stripped down piece of crap that only goes straight forward and barely moves, is it fair that I am not allowed to return it, and the sales guy is legally allowed to get away with it?