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

[mrmitchell]

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

Well when you plagiarize you pass it off to be your own work.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
General question: if IP is bollocks, how is plagiarism wrong?

Because you claim credit for somoene else's work. That is different from not paying to read that work.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


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.

How can one "own" a trademark? Does the chain Burger King "own" the phrase "Have it your way"?

As for a copyright- look at the word itself- obviously the issue is having exclusive rights on making copies. If someone makes a copy, what they have done is violated your monopoly rights. They did not steal anything in any realisitc meaning of that word. You still have the ability to make more copies to sell (and for people to buy). This is fundamentally different from most theft, in which you lose the item, period. As was stated before, what was lost was possible profit, not existing profit.

[Pekka]

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

Oh dear.. Mr. Dictionary has deserted us again, aye? I hate to be a little grammar... fascist, and I know I'm the one who doesn't care for proper but rather buggery bloody... something. But when you point out something strongly like that, make it in italics even, you want to .. you want to get the word spelled correctly.

Now, few common mistakes many of you make.

It's not grammer, it's grammar.

It's not rather then, it's rather than.

It's not definately, it's definitely.

Ok? Jolly good! Let's move on!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
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.

It invalidates his grammar statement

[Pekka]

So I guess if you killed thousands of people it would be OK because Stalin did it too? If you keep this up, you're going to lose your bathroom privilidges for a day and go on 10 minute time out mister!

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap
Because you claim credit for somoene else's work. That is different from not paying to read that work.

How can you claim that it's wrong to do so, if no one owns information anyway? Why should we even care?

[Fake Boris]

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.

So receiving payment for sale of such products is not part of "distribution"?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


So receiving payment for sale of such products is not part of "distribution"?

Where does denying payment from a sale come into this?

How can you claim that it's wrong to do so, if no one owns information anyway? Why should we even care?

Information isn't property

Work is

That is, a person's work in doing something should be reconized. Claiming credit for other people's achievements is a whole other argument, really, and has little to do copyrights...

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Where does denying payment from a sale come into this?

Again give me a break, it's just idiot to claim that copyright infringements do not impede one's ability to distribute his work, as if distribution wasn't about the expectation of being paid for the work you did that other people will benefit from.

That is, a person's work in doing something should be reconized. Claiming credit for other people's achievements is a whole other argument, really, and has little to do copyrights...

No, not at all. If something isn't property, what's wrong in claiming it's yours? Claiming the sky is mine is silly, but it sure isn't "wrong".

The idea here is not to debate uselessly about hypothetical questions, but rather to bring to the table this simple consideration: when you claim that something is one's property, you do it through a chain of causality that includes necessary and/or sufficient conditions (these conditions may include, but aren't limited to, personal work, resources consumed, money paid, etc).

"Theft" requires a prior definition of property (which the aforementioned chain of causality allows). If you define property through the possibility of theft, you're commiting a logical circle.

-->property is what can be stolen -->theft is unallowed deprival of property is a fallacy, unless you can define first how and when there is allowed deprival of property.

This is where a chain of causality comes into play: why can't any course of events that leads to you being granted ownership over something, entails the impossibility of the item in question being non-physical?

Now I know what I'd probably be told: but you can't properly define ownership over a trademark, a concept, a patent, etc, and worse still, there are different kinds of IP anyway.

Again I call for BS. Laws are made of semantic concepts and are applied by human beings who have to consider both the spirit and the letter of the law, and pit them with the circumstances of the situation they're evaluating.

Just like ownership over material property can't be unlimited (natural resources under a land do not belong to the owner of the land, pens can't be used to pluck out a coworker's eyes), ownership over abstract concepts is not unlimited. The concept of unlimited use itself is contrary to property; it would equate to natural property, a self-defeating proposition. Thus it is meaningless to reject IP on the basis that it must have limits; it has always had anyway.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm agreeing with OB

[Velociryx]

Speaking from the perspective of an artist whose livlihood is impacted by these various regulations, I have this to say:

* If someone downloads my works without paying for them, I do NOT feel that I am being cheated in any way, shape, or form. I write my books so that they may be READ. That's the point. The more people who read them, the happier I am. My HOPE is that people will have enough respect for me as an artist, as a human being, that they'll be willing to pay for the work, and thus, allow me to continue to write more stuff that pleases them, but this is very much on the honor system. There's no way, even with stringent anti-piracy laws, that I can make SURE that everyone who has read my works has bought and paid for a copy.

* Aside from that, if it's not a crime to buy (legally pay for) a book and loan/give it to a friend when I'm done with it, then I don't see a problem with loaning/giving a pdf copy of that same work. Just because the pdf copy can be endlessly replicated does not invalidate the exchange, as we currently have no way to prove that the exchange wasn't legit, and given that people are innocent till proven guilty in the nation of my birth, I must respect that. (ie., there's no way I can look at a pdf and tell at a glance if it was a legally bought and paid for copy, or if it was a copy OF the legally bought and paid for copy, and in the absence of proof to the contrary, I must accept the person's word...honor system).

* Ultimately, if someone does get their hands on a copy of my work "illegally" (term used in quotations because I don't believe it to be a crime, and anyone on this board could come up to me and outright TELL me they read such and so book of mine without paying a cent, and my only response would be "what did you think?"), if they enjoyed it, there's a good chance that they'll a) tell friends and recommend it, and/or b) go buy a copy to show their support for the artist. Both are good things.

* The real people who are taking the hit here are the publishers, who rob both sides (the artists, by generally paying them chicken feed for their work, and the consumers, who are grossly overcharged FOR the work). Stick it to the man!

* disclaimer: I realize that not EVERY artist shares this opinion, but I'd be greatly surprised if I was in the minority.

-=Vel=-

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Again give me a break, it's just idiot to claim that copyright infringements do not impede one's ability to distribute his work, as if distribution wasn't about the expectation of being paid for the work you did that other people will benefit from.

As the music, game, movie, and books industries show, it is possible to make enormous sales despite the constant "disturbance" of copy right infringments, which supposedly make these thigns harder to sell for some mysterious reason.

No, not at all. If something isn't property, what's wrong in claiming it's yours?

Maybe you should read what you quoted.


Work done is the so-called "property" of the person who did it, in that they can claim to of done something.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I'm agreeing with OB

If it can reassure you, I'm only arguing from the perspective given to property in our societies, I'm not saying that I agree with it.

[Velociryx]

Having said the above, I'll add this:

If, on the other hand, someone downloads my work (legally or illegally) and tries to pass it off as their own....it's open season....

-=Vel=-