I know the RIAA and the MPAA take copyright seriously - but who doesn't thake thier bread-n-butter seriously?

Copyright has its uses defending the little guys with new ideas against the big guys who have the resources to steal those new ideas and get them marketed before the little guy has the chance to get started.

Hey look! The US has a copyright czar! Just what we needed, another method to treat people like criminals.

Ok, sorry for that tangent, but using copyright like a bludgeon illustrates what I don't like about it.

Everything can be represented by math (and that's why math is so wonderful), and the human experience is limited. Alone, this isn't much of a case against copyright, because a "new" idea is the domain of perception.

But, staying with the practical here: What needs protecting is not the idea, but the ability of the person who had the idea to make use of it for her own profit.

So: Copyright as a limited and temporary protection of an idea makes sense.

But copyright as an all-encompassing moat-n-wall against ever not being able to profit from that idea is an obscenity.

How so ? why suppose otherwise ? What is the evidence ? How about songs ? Or GPL software ? Charity ? Or Open movies (something that actually works completely reverse to normal movies people make movies from money from charities and the movie is open to the public)? What suppose to indicate that its otherwise ?
And BTW how do you know that a “legal store “ is actually selling legal copies ? especially the inter net download type ? is there some kind of indication you are going to prove or give distinguishable signs else your scenario fails.
A important note is not to base your assumptions especially not on low it’s a concept plagued via absurdities and self-contradiction.

The abundance of open and free download nullifies your appeal to extrasensory perception of IP.

The practicality of this scenario is irrelevant think 300 yarest from now maybe in a distant star system a separate colony of humans. It’s a scenario showing how the concept can be self-contradictory and therefore more of a imagination. How can you own a number is beyond help or sanity especially that it can be repeated.  And one question will a artist that doesn’t have the archive of all copyrighted works get arrested because  he/she didn’t know that a other person haze IP over a 20 word lyric to a song ? How many lyrics can you com up with ? You are limited via math and language (it needs to rime) .

Sorry that’s not a argument you are assuming something you need to have actual prove or a test. Besides Linux and other open stuff is on P2P/torrent networks and I did never reed statements like “HEHEH we are pirating and make more illegal stuff” on any forum especially that some of thus sides don’t have forums or any commentary laving system.

Provide a test of channeling this piracy essence or the argument must be abandoned.

You did use the word “they” didn’t you mean “the” because the downloader is the person that we are examining and he accepted the download for a free sample like a free sample of a food in a restaurant and didn’t distribute it simply downloaded for personal use.
The uploders are not of interest for this scenario.

I’m sorry I don’t know exactly how to understand this is this a agreement to my statement or a kind of rejection . Its hard to tell..

And as MattShizzle points out: One of the biggest sites flat-out calls themselves pirates, "The Pirate Bay", using an anti-piracy symbol from the 70s.

 You're treating this as if it were black-and-white. It's not, there are many concerns to keep in mind. I do not argue in favor of the RIAA or MPAA and the draconian tactics they employ, nor do I argue in favor of the laws that allow them to act in that way.

I do aregue in favor of limited, breif copyright to allow the person who had the idea they are trying to market the opportunity to do so.

Also, I'm a Linux user, so stop throwing OpenSource at me, I understand all that. I also understand (like so many fail to) that those licences are also restrictive. Read one sometime, it's no the anarchy people belive it to be.

Luckily, my conscience has an exception to a copyright, so yes, I don't take it very seriously.
It is necessary, because my picky taste for films and music mostly makes me soon regret the money spent on them. Criminal, action, romance, commedy, musical, pop, rock, hip-hop/rap, metal, jazz, r n'b, d n'b, techno, tekkno, and computer games, either too violent or demaning on computer, etc, most of these human inventions doesn't interest me. This also means, that I've got relatively little to piratize. I sell nothing, I don't distribute further, and I couldn't even buy most of the stuff anyway, if I'd have no P2P, so it's not that the corporations would actually lose any money on me.

The real data pirates are people, who has a secret rooms full of computers, which are full of CD burners, and so they produce and sell thousands of illegal copies. These are usually to be found in greater Vietnamese marketplaces, and the recognition is easy - look at a bottom side of a CD or DVD you're trying to buy. If it's not silver, there's a still-room somewhere nearby.

Is that acceptable, Carx? That these folks can use cheap duplicators to enable them to sell CDs for pennies on the dollar? Where creating the music, recording it, editing and balancing it is a great deal of effort and expense?

I see it as sticking it to the man.

Well theft is theft unlike someone people I don't think there is any difference in stealing £/$ 5 from a homeless man or the same amount a large corporation.

And there is zero difference between shop lifting a cd and downloading one, well no legal difference there is a difference in the change of getting caught which is why so many people do it (it says a lot about morality through that the stick of getting/caught punished is a big motivator in how people behave)

Very basis of law is that we are equal under it, I don't know if any judge would treat the person who did the theft any different based on who the victim was, through society generally does tend to be lenient on criminals if their circumstances make their crime more likely (ie a homeless person stealing a cd to sell for food who generally I hope be treated leniently) but that doesnt apply to most software/music pirates/theives who can afford the product but choose not to

Corporate profits are basically what determines whether I have a job or not, if they earn less they are less likely to employ me and hence I will be poorer (far poorer than if I actually paid for music

And if taxes properly (yes I know they sometimes dodge them) is what pays for hospitals, roads etc

Fine Carx, you want a highly structured debate rather than a casual discussion.

First, pick a subject and stick with it. "Copyright" and "Intellectual Property" are not interchangeable terms. If you are going to discuss both, please be clear about which you are referring to.

On copyright: The current state of copyright law is, as you've argued, illogical. However, as the term implies, the right to copy must be protected for a time so that the original producer of the work can recoup costs and make an initial profit. This is part of the well established effort-for-reward system currently in use. The work itself isn't protected after the copyright period, since there really is no point. If another creator of works (or aliens!) come up with similar or identical works... well, it makes no difference. Their right to copy their own work is still protected.

On Intellectual Property: I don't have any defense for intellectual property.

Note: Please do not call me "dear".

I personally don't take copyrights and patents seriously. I am aware that society does, and have adopted certain habits to avoid being sued or some such, but if I had a choice they wouldn't exist in the first place.

Carx: I was brushing up on research for copyright and successfully torpedoed my own argument. I can't edit the above post, so just imagine it says: "Forget it. I got nothin' here. Copyright and 'Intellectual Property' both fail to serve a definable purpose and can be used to abuse other folk's rights." Ok?

I have to agree it isn't stealing because they still have it. I totally disagree with the concept of "intellectual property. " I do think they deserve it too for charging so much for all these years.

Under current circumstances(ie: the capitalist society we inhabit today), I would not use your or anyone elses work to promote something I had done. If I did, you proving it would hurt me significantly, so it would be rather stupid to do so. Under the ideal circumstances(ie: no capitalism), copyrights and patents would have no purpose and removing them would not hinder the advancement of society as having them does now. I would have no problem using them then, but of course I wouldn't be making a profit off of it either.

Let me see if I can figure out the confusion here. If I create a book and copyright the book, bascially the characters, story line etc within the story, even though the possibilty that one day someone on the earth would have created the exact some book, doesn't rule out the fact that I wrote it first and therefore have the right to make profit on it therefore contributing to economic growth, basically recoup the cost of the book. That's pretty much the incentive behind the copyright laws and IP laws. If someone is going to bother creating something, be it a work of art, or an engine, there better be a way for the person to recoup the cost involved in making that idea a reality.

However there are many ways to abuse the system, especially in the software domain and music domain. With that said, both IP and Copyright are limited, so that eventually they will enter public domain allowing anyone to use the product for their benefit.

Now even though your math maybe correct, it really doesn't apply in the real world. Where if there is no way to recoup the cost of making an invention, art, etc, etc, etc why bother to make it, especially in today's society.

So, allow me then to introduce the concept of "Protection of results of individual and group effort".

The idea is that when an individual or a group create something that creation is protected from duplication by others in order that the creators can recoup the costs of their efforts, and continue to profit from that effort in order to fuel further efforts.

This does not protect the information pattern of the product because that would be silly! I mean, the pattern has always and will always exist, mathematically speaking. It does protect the efforts required to locate these particularly useful of valuable patterns from the infinite sea of possible patterns.

Human effort in the discovery, polishing, and manufacturing particular expressions of these information patterns is recognized as valuable. The value is returned to the creator individual or group as resources (often in the form of money) in trade for the results of those efforts.

We recognize that allowing others to take the results of that effort and duplicate it would infringe on the rights held by the original manufacturer by shifting payment from the original manufacturer to the usurping duplicator.

Therefore we choose to protect the rights of the original manufacturer by placing the act of duplicating another's work outside the realm of acceptable behavior. The task of identifying the work for adjudication would be as simple as using the information pattern itself.

We also recognize that we do not with to grant control over the actual information pattern, which granting this effort protection in perpetuity would in effect be.

Therefore this effort protection would be limited to some reasonable period of time (say, 17 years or so).

Thank you.

I did not make any appeal.

I simply asked Vastet some questions about his or her position, given certain facts, regarding certain scenarios.

Back later.

I have to agree with nikimoto here. Nikimoto was not making an argument, he or she was simply asking a question. If an argument had been made, then I would agree that it was containing an appeal to pity. However, an argument was not made. So no appeal occurred.

You could not copyright the sound of breaking glass in the instant of recording it per se. What you can do is Copyright a device the immulates the sound of glass breaking, but you cannot copyright glassbreaking. It's far to general and well it's not an idea per se, just like you cannot copyright words and letters unless it relate to commercial applications, such as Coca cola, however I can still use the the word Coca Cola in literature, I just cannot use it to represent my company per se.. Again as much as you want to stay in the realm of logic and math, the math that your applying does not really apply to everyday life and reality of the function of our economy and the laws regarding copyrights and IP.

With that said, IP is in regards to abstract properties, refers to creations of the mind such as musical, literary, and artistic works; inventions; and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce, this includes copyrights, pantents and trademarks.

Now I have defined it, I can prove that I created a symbol that is not used by others in commercial applications, same goes for musical works, artistic works and of course inventions are are useful and non-obvious. All these can be proven that I am the first one to do so, even if someone MAY created it ONE day, I did it first and therefore as well was the first to copyright/patent/trademark the creation. To which I should be allowed to make money off it it to recoup any losses occured.

With that said I cannot prove you have rights, right to freedom of speech for example, it is an idea that is enforced as if it really is something. But really it is an idea, and abstract concept that is applied to everyday life. Reality is you really don't have this right, I could simply hunt you down and kill or have u put in prison or anything else I deemed good to keep you quite. However society and our governments operate on the concept that these abstract ideas actually do mean something. The same goes with copyright and IP, however they can be abused as I stated before.

It makes the companies make less money right? Don't be a shill for the pieces of garbage at the RIAA/MPAA/ESA - every one of those assholes in those organizations should be tortured to death. I wish the poor and working people would rise up and take over the country and execute the vast majority of CEOs and redistribute their money to the people that have little or nothing. That's the reason it makes me happy when the stock market goes down - it means rich people are making less or maybe even losing money.

Absolutely - people here a long time have seen me post stuff like this regularly. I'd like to see capitalism utterly destroyed.

I think american capitalism is going to be reworked, especially since the entire financial meltdown that is occuring, regulation is the key, unchecked greed gets u into lots of trouble.