I don't understand quite what you mean. Are you saying after ten years time everything should be free or that a product that has not earned some amount of profit for its creators during the tenth year after its release should be free?Ewyx said:IP laws are fucked. However, they're skewed toward powerful corporations, and not in the interest of the public and creativity. Go figure.
10 years. After that it should be public domain, if you can't make a profit in 10 years. You're obviously doing something horribly wrong.
Something like this sounds good, a sort of limited copyright, so there's still incentive to invest in development of new ideas, but not so that human culture is controlled by few corporations.Ewyx said:IP laws are fucked. However, they're skewed toward powerful corporations, and not in the interest of the public and creativity. Go figure.
10 years. After that it should be public domain, if you can't make a profit in 10 years. You're obviously doing something horribly wrong.
Correction: if China and England called in their debts Right Now there would not be a China or England anymore. Calling in debts among non hostile countries is considered an act of war. Global politics are a bit trickier when you throw in consequences aren't they?dududf said:Funny thing here America. If China and England called in their debts on you Right Now There wouldn't be an America anymore. Just something to think about when you try pushing everyone else around.
You shouldnt need somebody else to tell you whats right or wrong, in this instance pirates are an economic drain. They are not the ridiculous overblown drain the industry likes to claim they are but they are a drain. On the other hand the industry has being systematically been a dick to its genuine customers and its attempt to force new laws and legislation through to try an beat a problem with brute force that obviously cant be beaten that way. The industry needs to seek an alterantive, find a middle ground with pirates and work on rebuilding teh relatonship to try and make some converts. Trying to hammer them wont work, they adapt to anything, and since you cant collectivly punish them all or even catch most of them you cant stamp it out.dochmbi said:I would love to read something written by a recognized professional philosopher on intellectual property as I'm on the fence about the ethics of it all and would love to delve deeper into the problem.
That's not the point.subtlefuge said:Correction: if China and England called in their debts Right Now there would not be a China or England anymore. Calling in debts among non hostile countries is considered an act of war. Global politics are a bit trickier when you throw in consequences aren't they?dududf said:Funny thing here America. If China and England called in their debts on you Right Now There wouldn't be an America anymore. Just something to think about when you try pushing everyone else around.
OT: I can understand the concept, and I really do sympathize with the people who lose money, but I really don't want the U.S. government policing the Internet more than they already are.
Well, a lot of this is only because of America's morality. Nobody fears us because they don't believe we'll actually use our military power for our own benefit, rhetoric aside. China for example is building up a massive war machine, and blinding our satellites and such while thumbing their nose at us because they know we'll wait for them to start the inevitable war on their terms.dududf said:That's not the point.subtlefuge said:Correction: if China and England called in their debts Right Now there would not be a China or England anymore. Calling in debts among non hostile countries is considered an act of war. Global politics are a bit trickier when you throw in consequences aren't they?dududf said:Funny thing here America. If China and England called in their debts on you Right Now There wouldn't be an America anymore. Just something to think about when you try pushing everyone else around.
OT: I can understand the concept, and I really do sympathize with the people who lose money, but I really don't want the U.S. government policing the Internet more than they already are.
Trying to order people around from which if they wanted could bankrupt the country in question is silly. You're picking a fight with someone from when in their eyes your practically their *****.
It wouldn't be feasible just to call it in (especially since they wouldn't be able to pay up, and all of the consequences) but just the thing that you are ordering someone superior (in a way) around.
It just seems silly to me. Keep your reform and change in your borders, unless we are open to the idea as well.
Bootlegging is the act of creating illegal goods and then selling them. The "selling" being the key part of the term. A practice, when intellectual property is involved, no one can argue is harmless. Something the "used game" market is pretty damned close to.Matt_LRR said:There is one. Bootlegging.
Indeed I shouldn't, but I do need someone to examine things more closely for me so I can at least attempt to have coherent ethical beliefs. I often read stuff on the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, here's an article they have on property in general: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/property/Epitome said:You shouldnt need somebody else to tell you whats right or wrongdochmbi said:I would love to read something written by a recognized professional philosopher on intellectual property as I'm on the fence about the ethics of it all and would love to delve deeper into the problem.
That tired old picture? It is flawed in a few ways. 1) when it comes to software, you aren't buying a physical object. You are buying a license. By copying, you steal a licence to use that data. The duplication of that data is inconsequential. 2) language and legal definitions change. The argument in that picture fails to grasp that such definitions change constantly, with the culture and with need. Software piracy was unheard of when the concept manipulated in that diagram was first formulated - thousands of years ago. Times change, drastically. In our language, words to do with "theft" today are widely used to include the taking of something that isn't yours, regardless of whether it deprives the other person of its use, shown succinctly in phrases like 'you stole my heart', 'you stole my idea'. It's there, right in our language. Law is bound to catch up.dududf said:U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said at a Washington D.C. press conference announcing the strategy. "Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise]."
Get it right people. There's a difference.
Anyone else tired of the US trying to make everyone else in the world like the US? Because it's getting kinda annoying.
Funny thing here America. If China and England called in their debts on you Right Now There wouldn't be an America anymore. Just something to think about when you try pushing everyone else around.
I don't care what you do in your own borders, but it stops at the border.
Matt_LRR said:C-32 is a whole 'nother argument and while it's absolutely worth discussing, at least among Canadians, I didn't think it was relevant enough to this to bear getting sidetracked on.Andy Chalk said:I'm interested that in your mention of Canada as a part of the 301 report, you didn't make any reference to Canda's own Bill C-32, introduced last month as the "Canadian Copyright Modernization act" to bring us in line with that report.
But, since you mentioned it, anyone who doubts the influence that the US can bring to bear on other nations need only look at the Canadian situation. US pressure is largely responsible for the government's dogged determination to update the country's copyright laws and bring them more in line with the US's vision of the modern era. And those laws are heavily slanted in favour of rightsholders - your average user is pretty much left out in the cold.
The damages are, I'll admit, hard to see. But, let's take an example. Charles Dickens writes "A Christmas Carol" and sells it to a publisher, who sells a thousand copies. Then another publisher sells another thousand copies, but pays Mr. Dickens nothing. What they stole wasn't copies of books, but customers and sales. Mr. Dickens has a right to make something, sell it at a price of his choosing and benefit from whatever profits (if any) it happens to make. Now, back in England a hundred years ago they didn't have such laws to protect IP and Mr. Dickens suffered terrible financial distress despite writing one of the most popular works of his time and money that should have accrued to him went instead to those who stole his story and gave nothing back. The damages are those lost sales.Cynical skeptic said:The harm of whats known as piracy is even discredited by the document in question. So we have all this talk of enforcement for a white collar crime that even the enforcement document itself clearly states theres no proof of damages.
No damages, no crime. Simple.
Well, the thing is that none of this really matters much in a purely domestic sense. The only thing that could come out of it would be a sexxy new set of police powers for the Federal goverment, and very little in the way of results. As an issue media piracy is small potatoes, the big issues are things like the piracy of drugs, clothing, and the like. Pfizers (which ran a major complex down here in Connecticut where I live, even if it's leaving) came up with this little drug called "Viagra" for example which cost them a lot to develop. China has been knocking it off and selling it around the world for a lot cheaper than Pfizers wants to charge, in violation of their patents, costing both them and our goverment a ridiculous amount of money. Likewise Chinese sweatshops churning out things like denim jeans and slapping labels for "Levis" or "Calvin Klein" on them is another big deal. The money from these sales isn't so much from the US Market, but the fact that they sell these things globally at rates that the creators can't compete with due to sweatshop labour, and no need for China to engage in the creative process, R&D, or financing involved.Reverend Del said:I'm inclined to go with Sparrow on the subject of America nuking folks if they don't agree. Not going to happen. Nobody's that suicidal. And yes, even for America that would be suicide.
As for this new IP shenanigan. It'll be interesting to see, certainly. The most interesting will be just how hard they hit the pirates. Because stringent punishments could easily be a good deterrent to most casual pirates.
Andy Chalk said:Which is a crying shame, because the bill is written in such a way as to say:Matt_LRR said:C-32 is a whole 'nother argument and while it's absolutely worth discussing, at least among Canadians, I didn't think it was relevant enough to this to bear getting sidetracked on.Andy Chalk said:I'm interested that in your mention of Canada as a part of the 301 report, you didn't make any reference to Canda's own Bill C-32, introduced last month as the "Canadian Copyright Modernization act" to bring us in line with that report.
But, since you mentioned it, anyone who doubts the influence that the US can bring to bear on other nations need only look at the Canadian situation. US pressure is largely responsible for the government's dogged determination to update the country's copyright laws and bring them more in line with the US's vision of the modern era. And those laws are heavily slanted in favour of rightsholders - your average user is pretty much left out in the cold.
You, as a user, are allowed to:
1. make backup copies.
2. time shift
3. format shift
4. etc.
Oh, unless the content distributor locked it.
They came *so* close to actually passing meaningful reforms, and then took it all away in favour of corporate interest.
-m
On a differant track from what I've been saying elsewhere in this thread, keep in mind that copyrights need to be renewed and kept valid. This is why things like "Abandonware" exist, where a company has stopped maintaining the upkeep on a title, causing it to become public domain. It's a little more complicated than with books, but in the end if you take a look at sites like "Abandonia" or "Home Of the Underdogs" which operate publically, and legally, you'll find plenty of old games up for download there. If someone renews liscences or puts something back up for sale they are usually pretty good about removing the download.Ewyx said:IP laws are fucked. However, they're skewed toward powerful corporations, and not in the interest of the public and creativity. Go figure.
10 years. After that it should be public domain, if you can't make a profit in 10 years. You're obviously doing something horribly wrong.