(OT) Unauthorized copying ... was Re: (no subject)

From: Paul <subsolar_at_subsolar.org>
Date: Sat Jan 18 04:40:21 2003

On Fri, 2003-01-17 at 02:24, Megan wrote:
> >Now that's total BS .... If I copy a program/video/song you still have
> >the darned thing, unlike if I walk off with your computers. Somebody
>
> Ah, but why are you taking a copy? Is it perhaps because it has
> value to you? That it entertains? If so, then someone had to
> go through the process of creation to produce it. Not unlike
> building a house. They deserve something to compensate them.

Apparently you did not read my whole comment, I said that if you find
something of value that the author deserves compensation. What about if
the author no-longer makes the thing I copied available, the author
apparently does not want compensation.

> >that makes a copy of something *may* be depriving an author of possibly
> >income, but if someone is too cheap or really can't afford to buy it in
> >the first place, "lost income" is just BS.
>
> That seems to be the general argument of the recent and current
> generations... that just because they can't pay for something
> shouldn't preclude them having it... "they are entitled to it".
>
> WRONG! If it has value to you, then pay for it.

If I perform a service cheaper than you and some of your customers *may*
not be using your services then that's THEFT? That is basically what
the "Intellectual Property" industry is claiming if you follow there
arguments to their complete conclusion.

As I said at the end of my message, if you find value in a
program/music/story that somebody else made they deserve some form of
compensation.

> This is not to say that I support the RIAA... they have been
> excessivly draconian in the measures they have taken. I don't
> think they should be able to get a greater amount of fees from
<snip>
> they don't need to add NEW laws to protect against specific
> forms of CI, just enforce the old ones.

Every time a new technology has come out the copyright holders have
sought additional controls beyond what they already have. This last bit
was worse that than the previous 150years because of the rise of media
cartels and congress basically letting them write the laws without
opposing input.

> >Ideas and physical objects are totally different!!!
>
> How physical is physical... an idea in your head which hasn't
> been realized isn't physical, but once you have realized it
> through generation of a song, like writing it on paper, you
> have a physical product (and the performance is physical).
>
> If you develop a computer program, it exists as magnetic
> domains on a disk, or as patterns of electrons in a bit
> stream... electrons are just as physical.

By definition "natural property" is limited to one physical
manifestation, even if you and I have identical cars, yours does not
belong to me, even if I built it. This is different that "intellectual
property" which is not limited to one physical manifestation. If we both
have identical CDs and I happen to own the copyright on it I basically
own your CD and get to tell you what you can do with it. If you convert
your CD to an MP3 file I still own the copyright on it music and can
control what you can do with it.

> >That said I believe if you find a program/video/song useful that
> >somebody else created they deserve some sort of compensation, but the
> >whole idea of "Intellectual Property" is bullshit.
>
> You're entitled to your belief... but I won't shed a tear if
> you steal IP and are caught...

Re-read what I said, I consider "Intellectual Property" BS because it
is not property and is not something you an own. Knowledge is by it's
nature the property of the community at large, it just that government
has granted the original creator a limited right to control reproduction
of a work to encourage production of new works. Once this time period
is over giving the author the *opportunity* profit from the work (they
are not guaranteed profit), it falls into the public domain where all
may take advantage of it, at least that was the original theory in the
U.S.A.

What we have now is a bunch of feudal lords controlling the majority of
our current culture and letting the majority of their "property" molder
& decay just to protect a few "strategic" resources with Serfs giving up
their freedom just to gain some possible protection by pledging fealty
to them. If copyrights had been always treated as property the way they
are now, our society would be much poorer for it.

If copyright suddenly disappeared, people would still write stories,
sing songs, program computers and society at-large would continue. The
generally quality of works would probably be lower so copyright in
general is probably good for society.

I think we can agree on the following two points:
1. Creators deserve recognition & compensation for adding to society.
2. The current is weighted in favor of copyright holders at the expense
of the rest of society.

Regards,
Paul

P.S. to the best of my knowledge I am not liable of any illegal
copyright infringement and probably have compensated copyright holders
more than average.
Received on Sat Jan 18 2003 - 04:40:21 GMT