rob_simple said:
Yeah, kind of different there, chief:
It's always different, sweetie.
After ten or so years the products are able to be developed by other companies and can become available to all (depending on how the health service works, in your country.)
Yes, it varies by region, and that's a very important thing here. And that actually relates to the video game argument you were putting forth. Huh. Yuor own argument of how its different relates to how it's the same.
While it is a harsh reality that not everyone will be able to afford the initial price of the treatment, it's a necessary evil if companies are to continue working on cures.
Actually, if you look at a lot of countries, that cost issue is a clear lie and so is the necessity. But the thing is, in other countries, those prices may not come down even after the patents are up. And so your argument of a short term prohibition again fails in many regions.
What we are discussing already exists, has been profited from and, in fact, could be profited from in the future if they were made available for sale again.
If they wished to incur further cost as well, which may not benefit them. Either way, it is their right and their choice.
Your comparison of robbing me is utterly idiotic because you're talking about forcefully removing goods from a single person's property that they have paid for themselves (I'm pretty sure that the people who worked on these games were paid wages, rather than paying the company to let them make games.)
You opened the door for that with your ridiculous comparison. I merely said "okay, if you're going down that path (which yuo have admitted is idiotic), then...."
What most people here are championing isn't that it's alright to steal but that they would gladly pay money if the product was made available to them; nevermind the fact that the money would, most likely, never make it to the hands of the actual creators of the games.
And my point is about violating rights, not stealing specifically. To which you said, basically, "fuck that."
We're not: we are talking about art that has been shared with the world but which you think people should be allowed to remove from the public domain for no reason other than they feel like it.
It was never in public domain, so they're not removing it. If you don't understand the argument, don't assume.
By your logic, whoever currently owns the Mona Lisa (not its creator) should be able to have all images of it pulled from the internet, stores, books, postcards and absolutely any other place where it has been reproduced; even hanging a curtain over it in the Louvre (pretty sure that's where it is) and not letting anyone ever see it again.
Actually, no. By my logic, the work (which is no longer copyrighted and actually belongs to the public domain, whether explicitly or in its de facto state) can be copied freely in any format someone sees fit so long as it does not (edited to correct) infringe on the owner of the property's rights (for example, intruding on the site where it is held at the time, actually taking it, etc).
Physical rights and intellectual rights are not the same thing. I'm sorry you do not understand that and assume a hole in my logic that only exists from the limited perspective of someone who does not understand property and intellectual property rights.
We have a name for that: it's called censorship.
Censorship means a lot of things. But since nobody's actually promoting censorship here, that's kind of a moot point. Perhaps you would like to accuse me of political correctness, too. Or maybe voter fraud or witness tampering, while you're at it. Maybe you could call me a fascist for disagreeing with you.
Or maybe we could stick to the issue at hand. I'm game.
