Here's my take: IP laws as they are currently written are not good. Authors' works can be protected through trademark laws, their names being their own trademarks. If someone were to publish an author's work under a different name (plagiarize) or represent their printing as that of the original author (copy and sell), the result is a fraudulent misrepresentation of the author's trademark.However, author should be responsible for policing their brand, not the general public or the government.
Hahaha, was the hungry grizzly bear example at 2:50 really nessecarry? I agree with the intellectual property argument, but I think taxes are a good kind of theft, but the people should be able to specify better how the taxes should be used for them though. And another thing. You sound like a game reviewer on Gamespot that I liked.
Here's the thing: your point about being able to copy stuff and that doesn't disturb the original owner because you don't deprive them of anything - it's a moot point. I'm a software developer making software for the general public. If everyone copies rather than pays for my software, I have a problem: how do I get compensated for my time writing the software if everyone should get it for free? Development costs are expensive. The end result is bankruptcy for us, which hurts us both.
@Brit5 Given that it'd be hard to stop them I'd say your issue is a business plan that was adapted to software instead of made for it. Piracy is not the problem. The lack of creativity in the method by which software is sold is the problem. Software is logic, logic is math, I don't pay for two plus two and I won't pay for windows. Mind you, I don't pirate software I use free software. However, piracy is a symptom of a broken system. Not the other way around.
its the right to profit from smth by copying it. If you can copy smth like a car or computer go ahead, you legally can, you just can't copy it for sale.
Main problem is that intellectual property is potentially abundant with our current technology. That means that it costs practically nothing to reproduce anything that could be represented as data. This creates a large conflict between costs of producing the data and costs of reproducing it.
Exactly. So material production becomes comparatively more important. The RIAA would not exist without copyright, but musicians themselves would still be in demand to perform and create music.
Reproductions may not cost much, but personal service is always a premium.
Here's my take: IP laws as they are currently written are not good. Authors' works can be protected through trademark laws, their names being their own trademarks. If someone were to publish an author's work under a different name (plagiarize) or represent their printing as that of the original author (copy and sell), the result is a fraudulent misrepresentation of the author's trademark.However, author should be responsible for policing their brand, not the general public or the government.
flash3780 1 month ago
So, you don't have a problem with I. P. just how the government is attempting to enforce I. P. or how the government defines I. P.?
movcrit 1 month ago
Hahaha, was the hungry grizzly bear example at 2:50 really nessecarry? I agree with the intellectual property argument, but I think taxes are a good kind of theft, but the people should be able to specify better how the taxes should be used for them though. And another thing. You sound like a game reviewer on Gamespot that I liked.
BrytaPlanka 6 months ago
666th viewer.
CytherLynx 1 year ago
Here's the thing: your point about being able to copy stuff and that doesn't disturb the original owner because you don't deprive them of anything - it's a moot point. I'm a software developer making software for the general public. If everyone copies rather than pays for my software, I have a problem: how do I get compensated for my time writing the software if everyone should get it for free? Development costs are expensive. The end result is bankruptcy for us, which hurts us both.
Brit5 1 year ago
@Brit5 you should watch this for a better explanation. watch?v=GZgLJkj6m0A
CytherLynx 1 year ago
@Brit5 Given that it'd be hard to stop them I'd say your issue is a business plan that was adapted to software instead of made for it. Piracy is not the problem. The lack of creativity in the method by which software is sold is the problem. Software is logic, logic is math, I don't pay for two plus two and I won't pay for windows. Mind you, I don't pirate software I use free software. However, piracy is a symptom of a broken system. Not the other way around.
runaway2me80 9 months ago
its the right to profit from smth by copying it. If you can copy smth like a car or computer go ahead, you legally can, you just can't copy it for sale.
your video sux
alexandersydney 1 year ago
Main problem is that intellectual property is potentially abundant with our current technology. That means that it costs practically nothing to reproduce anything that could be represented as data. This creates a large conflict between costs of producing the data and costs of reproducing it.
artman40 2 years ago
Exactly. So material production becomes comparatively more important. The RIAA would not exist without copyright, but musicians themselves would still be in demand to perform and create music.
Reproductions may not cost much, but personal service is always a premium.
CurtHowland 2 years ago
cavemen better not steal my invention
x0TheJackal0x 2 years ago