If you use BitTorrent, the terrorists have won...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I believe that artists have the right to determine how to distribute their works, be it for profit, free of charge, or through some middle ground such as streaming audio/video. whether or not piracy affects anything positively or negatively is irrelevant IMHO, to what the artist/creator/owner desires to be done with their work.

Your downloading music from the Web does not impede the owners' ability to distribute in any form or fashion. They can still distribute them, your act has no impact on this function whatsoever.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
nor is a plastic surgeon the owner of the breast he implanted

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I don't know what the others think, but I'm just trying to say that if you believe in "normal" property, there's no way you can't believe in IP. Doing so would be inconsistent, and it smells so much like trying to justify a free ride.

Normal property is fundamentally different from "intellectual property," which is a disingenuous term invented solely to confuse.

If you want to talk about copyright, please, use the proper term. It has nothing to do with patents or trademarks.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Normal property is fundamentally different from "intellectual property," which is a disingenuous term invented solely to confuse.

I call BS. The term "intellectual property" was invented in the 19th century.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I call BS. The term "intellectual property" was invented in the 19th century.

How does this refute my point? I did not assert the term was invented in the 20th century. Or are you saying that terms invented in the 19th century could not be intended to confuse?

[Kuciwalker]

I'm saying terms invented in the 19th century are definately not intended to confuse in their 21st-century context.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Your downloading music from the Web does not impede the owners' ability to distribute in any form or fashion. They can still distribute them, your act has no impact on this function whatsoever.

I've enjoyed this, but it just isn't worth my time anymore. My hope is to just interject in these threads when there is a clear misrepresentation of the law (as was earlier in the thread), and avoid the other garbage. I'll leave this by saying that I side with the creators and owners, not the sponges/freeloaders of society, because at the end of the day, I like to get paid for my work too.

[Wraith]

Sorry I don't have a good link to a copyright history yet, but my parents and grandparents are visiting this weekend, so I haven't had much computer time (they're at church now).

Here's the first two links off Google:

Copyright Timeline (US):

http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html

History of Copyright (UK):

http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/std/resources/copyright/history.htm

Only skimmed it, but this looks reasonable:
Copyright and Authors:

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_10/ewing/

--"Once it leaves their possession, the new owner can decide what to do wiht it."

Unfortunately, the doctrine of first sale has been seriously weakened lately. Hopefully people will start to wake up to it and fight back, but so far it's been too subtle for most to be affected.
Worst offenders here right now are the software companies. Suing people for selling their legally purchased (non-returnable) software on eBay, and the like. The whole license vs. sale sleight of hand.

--"Work is."

Work is a verb, not a noun. You can hire work or perform work, but how do you own an action?

--"I call BS. The term "intellectual property" was invented in the 19th century."

But is nevertheless used to confuse. "Intellectual Proprety" is a blank term used to cover trademarks, trade secrets, patents, and copyright. As I keep saying, these four areas of law are very distinct, and cannot be conceptually, legally, or professionally mixed together. People using the term "IP" these days usually either a) do not understand what they're talking about or b) are trying to make sure you don't understand what they're talking about.

--"I'm saying terms invented in the 19th century are definately not intended to confuse in their 21st-century context."

It's just newspeak. Lots of terms in use these days don't mean the same as they did when they were created, and in many cases the confusion is deliberate on the part of the people who have co-opted the term from the original usage.

--" I'll leave this by saying that I side with the creators and owners,"

The thing is, so do I. Which is why I'd much rather buy CDs or MP3s direct from the band(which I do when I can), go to their concerts, etc, than pay the music label. Read up on what even many of the big-name bands say about the much labels. They steal from the artists more than anyone else does.
Same for video, and print. You should see my book and DVD collections. Doesn't mean I like the major studios (who have a very small presence in my collection), but I am perfectlywilling to pay for works I enjoy. Doesn't mean I have to like the middle-men who leach off the actual creators, nor should I support the middle-men's attempts to change the laws to protect their business model.

Wraith
"I am always ready to learn although I do not always like to be taught."
-- Winston Churchill

[Kuciwalker]

Work is a verb, not a noun. You can pay for work, hire work, or perform work, but how do you own an action?

That's incorrect in so many ways, a few of which you illustrated in the sentence right after your claim.

[Wraith]

--"That's incorrect in so many ways, a few of which you illustrated in the sentence right after your claim."

Name one.

Trademarks are a government-run database about who can use what term in what context. Doesn't look like a natural concept of property to me, and is more about controlling fraudulent advertising than anything.

Trade secrets are just things you know that you don't tell anyone. Do you "own" it? No more so than the number between 1 and 100 you picked out and won't say. If someone else can figure it out, too bad for you.

Copyright and patents are more artifical creations that didn't exist throughout most of human history. Artists and creators still got paid before then. Amazing, isn't it?

Wraith
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything seems seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we must be most aware of change in the air -- however slight -- lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness"
-- Justice William O. Douglas

[Kuciwalker]

--"That's incorrect in so many ways, a few of which you illustrated in the sentence right after your claim."

Name one.

"You can pay for work." Prepositional phrase, "for work". Work is the object. Therefore, work is a noun.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

--"That's incorrect in so many ways, a few of which you illustrated in the sentence right after your claim."

Name one.

"You can pay for work." Prepositional phrase, "for work". Work is the object. Therefore, work is a noun.

You can pay for work [to be done].

But the word "work" is a noun, if you think of it in the sense of "That is his great master work"

I think Wraith unfortunately made a grammar statement that is wrong, but that does NOT invalidate his statement. One can not OWN actions in a monetary sense, as they disappear the second the action is done. One can perhaps own the result of the action (the sense in which work is a noun), if that is a tangible product.

But how does this whole notion of "work" make sens whern you look at something like trademarking "The Magic Kingdom"? The people at Disney did not invent the words, nor the phrase, nor the structure. They used common words to create an easy to make sentence (Who knows how many writers used that idea before), and they used to to advertise their product.

Does Disney OWN that phrase? Do people have to pay them to use it? If I decide to write a book about a Magic Kingdom, must I ethically send a check to the Disney Corporation?

[muxec]

If you use BitTorrent, the terrorists have won...
If you use eMule, the communists have won...
Blah..Blah...Blah...

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=134279

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap


NO its not.

You don't own work, you own the result of work. That said, a dentist does not come to own the teeth he worked on, nor is a plastic surgeon the owner of the breast he implanted. So work by itself does not give you ownership.

If I make a statement, that was "work" on my part, but it odes not mean I "own" in a legal sense every utterance I make.

Give me a break, it means that in certain contexts you own the result of your work. Those contexts are clearly not unlimited, but to claim there is no concept of property associated with it is just so much BS.

[Fake Boris]

General question: if IP is bollocks, how is plagiarism wrong?