"Intellectual Property" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.
The intellect is not property!
That's why the bizarre notion that one person can forcibly restrain another from engaging in specific intellectual activities is absurd on the face of it.
For some powerful rebuttals of the ludicrous concept of "IPR" Google:
Copying isn't theft, but sharing or recieving a copy of an intellectual property without it's owner's permission is. A bike is not an intellectual property so that argument is void.
By the way, I believe everyone has a bit of pirate in them because even our waiter one time wanted to give us a copied dvd movie of shrek for our children. Seems harmless enough. I think the problem is not people who copy for their own enjoyment, but those that copy things and kill other legit companies by undercutting the next guy. It would be so simple just to copy some discs and compete, but then I would be just as bad. So I suffer and must continplate on closing shop. This hurts.
Very interesting. I was researching karaoke piracy because we are close to shutting down our business because we cannot compete. I put my heart and soul into what I do and can tell you without a doubt that customers are spoiled by us. Even with that, we still cannot win. Example; We sell a karaoke player for about $259 with a decent 200 song pack. Great price. Yet the unscrupulous sellers out there will sell the same product with over 1,000 songs for less money. Basically burnt dvd discs.
Copy: noun. 1 Thing made to look exactly like another. 2 Single specimen of a book etc 3 Material for printing, 4 To make a copy of 5 To act or try to be like. >> As you can see the word "theft" does not appear!
♫ Copying can be theft.♫ Stealing these things leaves less pay left. Copying doesn’t settle the score if payment’s received no more. ♫ Copying can be theft.♫ If I copy yours I pay no dues The artist or writer is feeling blue – that’s what copies can do. If I protect my content, you’ll better understand how hard we work to make the stuff that’s so high in demand! Not paying for a thing, that is what’s called “copying” Sharing content with everyone -for artists, is just no fun. ♫
It is what America has given to the world. In the name of open society we know what American Society is right now. They can not think beyond materialism. Many people understand that evils and wars in the world today are due to persuance of naked hedonism by americans. You people have nothing to offer and have eliminated the origian culture of your own land. There are many more things in India that you "Nina" can learn and make cartoons out of that and earn your bread and may be butter too.
@molewizard. That is the past. Now in a world with telecommunications we can share knowledge so fast. And if you plan to make a bicycle too expensive... that is your lost (company lost). If I copy the planes of a bicycle? Anyway, Do I have the resourses to make one? The tools, the place? There are still real life limitations. But what we can copy is the idea. And later I can correct or improve a design in that bicycle planes (and let to be copied too). That is go to forward.
@molewizard she is not interested in this type of logic. under the guise of the greater good, what she and people are really after is deep-seated self-interest. I cannot blame her for it, but I do blame the allusion of some noble cause. there is none.
@kkasajian I'm not sure which post you're referring to. I think in actual fact, she's talking about art, rather than intellectual property. I think she's trying to remove creativity from the bounds of copyright, thought I could be wrong.
@molewizard So any good or service that you do for yourself that you could have paid someone to do is stealing? Everytime you cook for yourself you're stealing revenue from a resturaunt.
@warjikin What is unique about that restaurant's food? What right fo they have over anyone else to monopolise it?
Nothing is unique about it, at least innovation-wise. You obviously can't copyright a skill, e.g. the skill of the chef. They have no right to copyright the food.
These analogies do not address the issue at hand. There are reasons why copyright applies to certain things, and not to others.
still, copying is not theft. It is copying. You cannot tell me that I cannot copy a thought. I do not care about patents. You cannot patent a thought, nor a vision. I think this world has become one big hoax. They have even began patenting genetically modified PIGS and even genetically modified CORN...
This is stupid. THese patenting bureaus can patent my faeces
@molewizard But that doesn't work in art. Art's not meant to be evaluated that way. The thing is you should free your art (and not become a source of money for large companies) and believe on audiences enough and they surly will support you. After all everyone would gladly give money to the artist him/herself then to a product made by some capitalistic organization deprived from the artist. Artists are the victims here. Hence the analogy.
@mizimakov I agree. But bicycles are products, not art. And the analogy still doesn't work in the case of art. It's just that artists shouldn't lock down other artists.
@greenghost2008 If your position is that all IP is bad, then I would agree with you and Nina. Is that your position? ..that all property should be tangible and Intellectual property should not be protected by law?
@kkasajian. What happen if I have some idea and later, two months, you have the same idea but you protect it by law? I'm the propietary of the idea or you? Ah ok, you just protected it first but I taken the idea first than you. That can not be. Someday the propietary of "intellect" will be gone. You can be credited for a work but not to be the owner of an idea. Nobody is owner of an idea or all is owner of an idea, the same. I hate patents and that kind of mind. That is backward.
@anyeos what if you come to me with an idea, I think it's great. So you want me to fund it because you are sure it will be a success. I am sure of its potential as well, but I just ignore you and build the product myself. I even admit the idea was yours, but there is not law to protect you because we now live in the world that you describe where propietary of "intellect" is gone.
@anyeos I don't understand what point you're trying to make. I'm sorry. I am not speaking for myself necessarily, but people are selfish. Are you saying that you want to rely on other people being nice? Have you read "the selfish gene" ?
@kkasajian. But you can gift me the product. Why you always think about getting things for yourself but for no one more? that is selfish. Anyway if you are so, I will not give you my idea. You first need to learn other things, like to be less selfish.
@kkasajian. But you can gift me the product. Why you always think about getting things for yourself but for no one more? that is selfish. Anyway if you are so, I will not give you my idea. You first need to learn other things, like to be less selfish. You are talking me about a selfish world, I don't like that kind of world. I'm talking about a sharing world.
@kkasajian. But you can gift me the product or you can give me work to do (How do you plan to make the product? Without workers?). Why you always think about getting things for yourself but for no one more? that is selfish. Anyway if you are so, I will not give you my idea. You first need to learn other things, like to be less selfish. You are talking me about a selfish world, I don't like that kind of world. I'm talking about a sharing world.
@kkasajian. But you can gift me the product or you can give me work to do (How do you plan to make the product? Without workers?). Why you always think about getting things for yourself but for no one more? that is selfish and backward. Anyway if you are so, I will not give you my idea. You first need to learn other things, like to be less selfish. You are talking me about a selfish world, I don't like that kind of world. I'm talking about a sharing world.
this is so silly...there is not a single person on the internet that could make a bicycle...much less nina paley...if she actually came up with the animation, the music and words, then she created it...and she is letting everyone use it...which is called permission...so you are not stealing her copyright...
I didn't mean it's wrong because it's illegal. I meant it's wrong. Copying is theft if what you're copying is someone's intellectual property. Unless you don't believe in intellectual property in general.
People confuse the word "illegal" and "wrong" just because something is illegal does not mean it's wrong. And just because you don't agree with something does not make it wrong either. People have different view points on the subject.
I understand why people copy movies. They pay some actors $20 million for 4 months of work!!! Thats crazy!! Then the studios charge an arm and a leg for these movies, so they can pay the actors their big fat paycheck. I dont care how good an actor someone might be, they are not worth $20 million for a few months work. According to Forbes the 10 highest paid actors from June 09' - June 10' got paid a total of $349 million dollars!!!!!!
@4funky1 I understand your point of view but I'm not sure if you know that acting is actually one of the hardest jobs in the world and also working in the movie industry all along is a very very stressful and most of the time really ungrateful job (not as much as being a doctor though) . I agree that some of the paychecks are really unreal but I also think that you shouldn't be angry at the actors yet be angry at the system and those who are making up the rules.
@mizimakov I have disagree with you. Acting is not one of the hardest jobs in the world it just takes talent, some have it some dont & there are many in between. Just like any other performer/entertainer whether they be singers, dancers, sportsman etc. I am not angry at the actors but the same people that agree to pay the huge paychecks are the same ones that make millions themselves & charge the general public more than what its worth so the actor can make his millions.
@4funky1 That's a very romanticized view of it, and though it's true to a certain point you can't say that all that stress isn't hard - even for talented actors. Having to deal with having no private life whatsoever and similar.
2nd. My parents are both in the film industry in Europe and I for fact know how hard is it to work 18 to 20 hours per day 6 months and have a lousy pay. Try it and then tell me it isn't hard. Hell, try organizing a film shooting for less money and say that. No way.
@mizimakov i don't think he's talking about all the movies and all the artists... just the ones that get millions of dollars and ask for money from people that earn 1 or 2 $ an hour
@4funky1 and think of the people that don't even work as much as the actors, that get money, like CE--.... oh.. 1 year old comment. hmmm. maybe i shouldn't reply.. oh well
yeah ok guys but if companies didn't have that money which they get using copyrights they wouldn't afford to make such a great movies and stuff- 3d cinema etc
If kept in check... file sharing is the equilibrium for the massive uncontrolled monetary domination of the world, it is the great equalizer for people everywhere....
Sure the entertainment industry will lose money... cry about it... people will still pay for records and pay money for entertainment.... somewhat.
Eventually most likely... IP's will be a thing of the past.
Copying, file sharing, P2P software distribution through the use of sharing bought IP's...
One may conclude that this process used to elicit information and creativity from one another is wrong and illegal since the overall value of said information and creativity from a business standpoint will drop
Yet one may also conclude that due to the sheer massive scale of the monopolization of monetary value and inspiration from creativity,
FILE SHARING IS THE EQUILIBRIUM THAT SOCIETY NEEDS!
@northsun99 Any fool can say what something is worth to him, but that doesn't directly affect an item's market value. I can't buy a car for a dollar just because I think that's what it's worth. Doesn't mean I need to change how I feel either. So yes, bad analogy and please go troll elsewhere.
Quit rationalizing thievery. People only make songs, programs and other things people "share" freely to try and make a profit, which we all have a right to do. If no one will buy, no one will make a profit, and no one will be motivated to make a very good product. Competition and profit are essential to progress. You can't ask a popular band to put the years of work in to make a top album and then tell them only 50 people will actually pay for it while the rest will just steal it.
@rudeplatypus True, fencing and illegal dissemination are part of the problem. And there are also cases where software, movies or music is not voluntarily shared. It only takes one member of a project or employee to release something into the wild. But that doesn't mean pirating downloaders are less culpable. That's like the old "she was asking for it" defense for rape; it's just more rationalization to avoid blame. And I mean that by analogy only, not level of seriousness.
@jonhamilton1000 Cute, and true, but completely unrelated to my point. If money (or something like it) doesn't change hands, then how can we value work? What if everyone did this? Competition would disappear and everything from software to health care would suffer. Plus, taxes don't get collected and we lose fiducial strength versus other countries. Our economy is strong enough to support some of that, but only so much, and each bit hurts. I say charge money even if you don't want to.
@jonhamilton1000 Yes they are. One example of a philanthropist says hardly nothing about all people. He still had a good day job and made a good enough living that he didn't want more money. That is definitely not most people. And anyway, my bigger point is that there's nothing wrong with money, or wanting it. Open-source software rides the coattails of profiteering efforts. How many great open-source programs can you name that released before a retail competitor paved the way?
@northsun99 Don't leave witless false analogies just to try to be smart. Personal value is obviously completely different from economical value; totally different mechanisms at play, and the first isn't an issue here.
My analogy is perfectly apropos. Just because you realize it destroys your argument, doesn't mean it isn't right.
Maybe you should think about what you say before you say it. It's *OBVIOUS* to me (and most other people) that people can create art because they enjoy doing it. If it makes the art that you create solely for money worth less, that's not our problem.
@tinghaling Yeah, you never see any big movies come out anymore. No good bands makes music and there are no games or softwares to be found. Its just not worth it.... Hey wait a minute. Are all in the Music, Film, Game and Software industry idiots who does work without profit?! Maybe they actually do make a little money of it. I mean they do have houses bigger than schools and cars more expensive than regular houses.
@tinghaling That is a lie. Who do you work for? AFACT? MPAA? The film industry is posting bigger profits than ever! And the profits lost by major labels isn't being lost to people copying music, it has been lost through their own lack of foresight to an online music store that has become so powerful it allows its owner to dictate terms to the labels, that little store is called... iTunes. And an ISP is not there to act as your own copyright enforcement police.
The songs sucks, the idea sucks, it is easy to understand why she don't cares about copying... Well, if somebody "copy" my creations, I'LL HAVE TO GO ON FOOT! "Thank YOU" NINA PALEY for spreading such a stupidity and get me and all other creators out of business. Better I think of making a living with "copying" too.
That is probably most moronic thing i've ever seen. Copying is pure theft sometimes. Unless if you're "creating" another thing which is similar to original. I'm working to develop a software which takes my 10 years. And a bastard comes and copies it without any payment or credit. Not theft? Yeah yeah..
@fizzlefishfizzle Of course. And the "bastard" will copy, distribute via torrent. People will write cracks and keygens. And if i would sell 1000 copies, now i can only sell 40 copies. "it doesnt matter" as long as you can crack..
A better analogy would be sneaking into a movie, play, or sports game without buying a ticket. One where there are empty seats and your head doesn't get in anybody's way. Theft doesn't really describe it, and it doesn't necessarily mean a lost sale, but it is illegal and you could quite reasonably argue that it's wrong.
If somebody snuck into an art gallery without paying, though, newspapers wouldn't report that they stole all the paintings by looking at them.
@SvenTheViking (Might not have been clear there. I meant not EVERY person who sneaks in translates to a lost sale. Obviously a certain percentage of sales are lost as a result of people sneaking in).
This is not a complex issue. I pay for the goods and services to create my artwork. I then need to sell the work in order to pay my bills and go on creating more artwork.
"Raping isn't a crime, killing a person leaves one less. Raping it leaves one more, thats what raping is for. Raping isn't a crime, if I rape u, then u feel it too. One orgasim for me and one for u. That's what raping can do."
"If I kill u then u would not live, but if I just rape u then there is sex for each of us, making more babies. That is what we call raping, sharing sexual pleasure with everyone. Thats why raping is funnnnnnn!!!!!!"
"Raping isn't a crime, killing a person leaves one less. Raping it leaves one more, thats what raping is for. Raping isn't a crime, if I rape u, then u feel it too. One orgasim for me and one for u. That's what raping can do."
"If I kill u then u would not live, but if I just rape u then there is sex for each of us, making more babies. That is what we call raping, sharing sexual pleasure with everyone. Thats why raping is funnnnnnn!!!!!!"
@LatinTaco4u No, because you put 3 different things; Rape, crime and killing and in the song there is only 2; Copying and theft so that's why it isn't the same.
Did she or did she not mention stealing in the song? So it Copying, theft and stealing which is three things, same as my version. Do u have a hearing problem?
@OldCottage2 The song arrests that "copying isn't theft". That is in contradiction to the interpretation of law at one of the highest levels. I wouldn't challenge this if there was a clear message in line with what you argue. I don't agree, mind you. But you have every right to argue to change laws. This song seems to purport something that is not legally true as if it were unassailable fact. That's Fox News style misrepresentation and it should not be supported.
@theplanetsarehere That's true if you define "law" as being decrees passed by legislatures. But to many of us, true law is not the opinions of politicians but the Natural Law inscribed in the souls of all human beings. And, according the Natural Law, copying is NOT theft but the sovereign right of each and every individual. If the statutes of politicians disagree, those statutes are themselves illegitimate.
@OldCottage2 We don't all get to make our own set of laws. In fact, you're argument is almost exact duplicate of the arguments presented by the Confederate States in regards to justifying slavery. Abolishment of slavery was unpopular legally and was forwarded and enforced by the government against the will of the people.
@OldCottage2 Also: There is no Natural Law. For that matter, I have yet to see evidence of a "soul". Even if there were, you would quickly find that your concept of "natural law" and someone else's concept differ. And you would need a third party to help find middle ground. And suddenly, guess what you have? Government.
@theplanetsarehere Slavery? Gimme a break. Right and wrong are objective and don't change regardless of what the king says, what the pols say, what experts say, what the "popular will" says, or what anybody says. To you, that's like supporting slavery. Well, if slavery's legal and enforced by the govt, as it was in the country for 90 years, I guess it's okay, right? No one has natural rights or anything, right?
@OldCottage2 You're dodging the point. How does your view of this "natural law" supersede my view of my rights? Who are you to dictate how my own creative works should be protected?
As soon as you have one dissenting opinion on what is and isn't a "natural" right, your entire world view falls apart. You require moderation. You require government.
Your fantasy world simply does not exist. No matter how much you pretend otherwise.
@theplanetsarehere "As soon as you have one dissenting opinion on what is and isn't a 'natural' right, your entire world view falls apart."
No, it doesn't because I think these things can be analyzed logically. I think my view is logical and your view is illogical. I understand you think precisely the opposite: that your view's logical and mine isn't. Nonetheless, that doesn't change the fact of that there is an objective reality that can be analyzed through reason. Natural law is part of that.
@OldCottage2 The minute you dictate how my labor must be disseminated regardless of my preference, you have skewed off the course of logic. There is nothing logical about what you believe, because you have convinced yourself that culture is created by a collective society and you reject the value of individualism.
There is an objective reality. You are allowed to do what you want with what you create. I am allowed to do what I want with what I create. Any other approach involves oppression.
@theplanetsarehere If you think I'm a collectivist or a "fascist," you're making really confused assumption. Many, many libertarians reject the concept of IP as fake property for the simple reason that it is not scarce and therefore you can't homestead an idea. You do not have control rights over the communication of an idea because it's superabundant and nothing is forcibly taken from you when it's communicated.
@OldCottage2 It doesn't matter what you label it. The end result is the same. You believe you should have authority over my labors. From the end result, that is a definitively fascist approach, even if the path that leads you to said result is from a different sociopolitical view.
If ideas are not scarce, than no one has need of copying. My work. My rights. You don't get to dictate how my labors should be disseminated. As Ayn Rand said, "A man has a right to the product of his mind".
@theplanetsarehere Property rights do not exist in the super-abundant world because there is no loss of property to the owner. If a person really owned "the products of his mind" communication would be virtually impossible, since the person's ideas spread every time he communicates them. This is why copyrights are always arbitrary (Should they last for 14 years, 50 years, when? What should they cover exactly? Lines of text? Recipes?).
@ThePlanetJupiter Property rights in SUPER-ABUNDANT things, like ideas do not exist. No you are not entitled to monopolize control over the distribution of your idea.
@OldCottage2 If the morality of your position were so clear, there would be no debate. I'd say your position is morally bankrupt and we're back at an impasses. Such declarations prove nothing.
Legally you are wrong. That is fact.
Morally your position is debatable, at best.
As I said: My work. My rights. You don't get to dictate how my labors should be disseminated. And I don't get to dictate how your labors are disseminated.
@ThePlanetJupiter "Legally" is not the point. Man's laws are frequently wrong and can frequently. Morally, my position adhere to natural law, while yours does not no matter how vehemently you assert it. This is demonstrated by the fact that your supposed right was created by statute. If you lived in before the 17th century or so you would never have presumed to have a right to COPIES of your work. You still don't presume to have one after the legal limit has elapsed. It's totally arbitrary.
@OldCottage2 What you mean is that your position adheres to your concept of natural law. But your philosophy is not universally held and you have no authority to project your belief system on to me. That's why legality matters. So that there is a system of arbitration between our dissenting world views.
By the way, if you lived before the 17th century or so there would be alot of things you would not presume to have a right to. So what? It's not the pre-1600's and it never will be again.
@ThePlanetJupiter These things can be analyzed logically. I think it's logical there is no legitimate property in the communication of an idea. To put it another way, you have no right over other peoples' communication. That's why IP is arbitrary and couldn't be applied consistently. If it could, it would be perpetual; Homer's heirs should still have property of the Iliad's copyright.
@OldCottage2 I agree that these things can be analyzed logically. I think that asserting control over the product of an individuals mind against their wishes is a violation. You can do as you like with your labors. You have no right over my labors. To suggest otherwise strikes as illogical. When such an impasse arrives we turn to legal arbitration. And the law is clear in this instance.
@OldCottage2 If the only way you can make your point is to simplify creative labors down to the belittling description of "something you previously said", then you can't really make your point. Comparing a full length novel or film down to the level of a mere utterance is akin to comparing a shot glass full of Mountain Dew to the water reserves of a glacier. Not every act is equal, so they should not be treated equally.
Until you lobbying is (if ever) successful, things are as they are. Logic.
@ThePlanetJupiter Again, one can only have property is scarce resources. That's the whole point of property. There would be no need for property rights if resources were superabundant. It does not trespass over a person's domain to copy anything, only to take from his scarce supply of goods so that he has less than before. Presumably, if copyright is ever legally abolished you will agree with my views, since they would then match the law?
@OldCottage2 The product of an individual mind is a "scarce resource". It doesn't matter if duplications of the end result of my creativity can be made without effort. Without the tremendous time and effort required at the genesis, the "resource" does not come into existence. Therefore the "resource" is rare.
To prove me wrong, let's see you create something using my imagination.
If copyright were abolished I would agree that arbitration would favor you. Nothing more.
@ThePlanetJupiter Your production of the original work may require "tremendous effort," making copies only requires the effort it takes to make the copy. Again, you don't hold any property rights in a copy. You cannot "own" an idea. You cannot "own" a concept.
@OldCottage2 Once again: Yes I can own a concept. Yes I can own an idea. I get that you wish that wasn't the case, but you keep making your statements as absolute fact when they are instead the way you *wish* things to be.
The copies cannot exist without the original. You cannot separate the labor of the original creation from the equation and still claim to be forwarding a "logical" argument. It doesn't matter how easy a copy is to make. The original is definitively limited in availability.
@ThePlanetJupiter You don't own everything your work may have an effect on. Extrapolate what you're saying to other areas. Do you own the enjoyment people might derive from your work? If you're a farmer, do you own peoples' bodies after they received nourishment from your food? No, you only own that scarce item you directly produced. Well, I'm tired of arguing, so this is my final word on the subject.
@OldCottage2 You're contesting an area I did not challenge with analogies not applicable to the discussion. There are laws built into copyright specifically protecting derivative works, and I support those laws. As for the "only own that scarce item" argument: You're trying to force rules governing physical objects onto intangible works. Copies do not exist without an original. You cannot logically separate rules governing the original from rules governing the copy.
@ThePlanetJupiter You keep calling in laws as the final point. Laws are imaginary just like borders. When was the last time you saw a migratory bird stop for a border check? This is what natural law is about. And its something the human species has lost as we've been trying to bend nature to our will. I suggest you stop spending time in the office with your imaginary things and go outside and enjoy the natural world, because we won't have it much longer the way we are going.
Art (the art being copied) is not a resource found freely appearing in nature. Furthermore (and most importantly) this dialog is predicated on the legal definition of theft, as seen in the little song "copying isn't theft". Theft IS a legal term. This IS a discussion about what constitutes an act of theft. So yes... laws ARE the final point within the context of this dialog. Fact.
@ThePlanetJupiter Fact: laws are made up concepts by men and are not real outside of our heads. Fact: we have to live with them as we are too primitive still to get along with each other. Fact: in the meantime though when a law goes against the wishes of society, then society displays its disapproval as is the case with the large number of people who copy digital media for free despite it being illegal.
@monkeyfunkyJohn - Not a single thing you mention counters the definition of "theft" in relation to copying. Yes, laws are constructs of society. But no... majority rule actually isn't the basis for law. Not in the US anyway.
As an example: In the 1800's there was a law that was enacted that went against the wishes of the majority of society. It was involved the end of slavery. As you are likely aware, half the nation rebelled. The law was enforced regardless. Majority will is not the answer.
@monkeyfunkyJohn So, does that mean that I can decide to ignore my next speeding ticket, on the basis that fact laws are "made up concepts by men"? :)
"Intellectual Property" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.
The intellect is not property!
That's why the bizarre notion that one person can forcibly restrain another from engaging in specific intellectual activities is absurd on the face of it.
For some powerful rebuttals of the ludicrous concept of "IPR" Google:
Molinari Institute Anti-Copyright Resources
thechinadesk 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from LucDupanloup1
Copying isn't theft, but sharing or recieving a copy of an intellectual property without it's owner's permission is. A bike is not an intellectual property so that argument is void.
KiersThebad 1 month ago
@KiersThebad The owner is whoever bought the recording, not the person who wrote it.
dubified89 2 weeks ago
If only they would stop copying the dollar.
cheekieweekie 2 months ago
By the way, I believe everyone has a bit of pirate in them because even our waiter one time wanted to give us a copied dvd movie of shrek for our children. Seems harmless enough. I think the problem is not people who copy for their own enjoyment, but those that copy things and kill other legit companies by undercutting the next guy. It would be so simple just to copy some discs and compete, but then I would be just as bad. So I suffer and must continplate on closing shop. This hurts.
MADPROAUDIO 2 months ago
Very interesting. I was researching karaoke piracy because we are close to shutting down our business because we cannot compete. I put my heart and soul into what I do and can tell you without a doubt that customers are spoiled by us. Even with that, we still cannot win. Example; We sell a karaoke player for about $259 with a decent 200 song pack. Great price. Yet the unscrupulous sellers out there will sell the same product with over 1,000 songs for less money. Basically burnt dvd discs.
MADPROAUDIO 2 months ago
can I copy they keys to your house, that could be fun because then we would each have one?
thirteendreams 2 months ago
@thirteendreams sure. but you still can't use my house. you will have to make a copy of that too.
asiwal 1 month ago
@asiwal i hope that when the technology to easily copy houses will be available.... they won't be copyrighted :)
andreirocks1992 1 month ago
I'm a hardcore Capitalist and even I know Copyright and IP is bullshit.
ComicPenius 3 months ago 2
i love nina
churchofsatan23 4 months ago
Copy: noun. 1 Thing made to look exactly like another. 2 Single specimen of a book etc 3 Material for printing, 4 To make a copy of 5 To act or try to be like. >> As you can see the word "theft" does not appear!
ryancfcsas 5 months ago 3
Is she on crack?
Crusader495325 7 months ago
OMG, somebody PLEASE autotune this!
TheNotoriousKRP 7 months ago
y the fuck do i see an argument about every fucking video!!!! fuck you trollers
AJ1498 8 months ago
♫ Copying can be theft.♫ Stealing these things leaves less pay left. Copying doesn’t settle the score if payment’s received no more. ♫ Copying can be theft.♫ If I copy yours I pay no dues The artist or writer is feeling blue – that’s what copies can do. If I protect my content, you’ll better understand how hard we work to make the stuff that’s so high in demand! Not paying for a thing, that is what’s called “copying” Sharing content with everyone -for artists, is just no fun. ♫
viciouscargo 8 months ago
@viciouscargo: full agree.
rmagic2323 7 months ago
@viciouscargo whatch hee Credit is Due (attribution song), FYI a lot of ARTISTS support FREE CULTURE
mizimakov 1 month ago
This grimace...
xxTaKe2xx 9 months ago
It is what America has given to the world. In the name of open society we know what American Society is right now. They can not think beyond materialism. Many people understand that evils and wars in the world today are due to persuance of naked hedonism by americans. You people have nothing to offer and have eliminated the origian culture of your own land. There are many more things in India that you "Nina" can learn and make cartoons out of that and earn your bread and may be butter too.
bandparty90 9 months ago
Sorry but Why my comments are posted a lot of times??? I only want the last. Please can someone delete all the others?
anyeos 9 months ago
I LOVE THIS WOMAN XD
cayman228 10 months ago
fight for ur freedom people
TOURNAMENTPOKER 10 months ago
piratbyrån, and piratgruppen.... making the world a better place!
Beaverman20 10 months ago
nina paley has an interesting argument here
orion1979z 10 months ago
@orion1979z Remember, stealing a thing leaves one less left.
But she makes the mistake of assuming that because you're copying the bicycle, NOBODY is being stolen from.
The company that makes the bicycle becomes the victim, and they have 1 less bicycle's revenue.
molewizard 9 months ago
@molewizard. That is the past. Now in a world with telecommunications we can share knowledge so fast. And if you plan to make a bicycle too expensive... that is your lost (company lost). If I copy the planes of a bicycle? Anyway, Do I have the resourses to make one? The tools, the place? There are still real life limitations. But what we can copy is the idea. And later I can correct or improve a design in that bicycle planes (and let to be copied too). That is go to forward.
anyeos 9 months ago
@anyeos What?
Sorry, that didn't make any sense.
molewizard 9 months ago
@molewizard she is not interested in this type of logic. under the guise of the greater good, what she and people are really after is deep-seated self-interest. I cannot blame her for it, but I do blame the allusion of some noble cause. there is none.
kkasajian 9 months ago
@kkasajian I'm not sure which post you're referring to. I think in actual fact, she's talking about art, rather than intellectual property. I think she's trying to remove creativity from the bounds of copyright, thought I could be wrong.
molewizard 9 months ago
@molewizard You mean intellectual pooperty.
warjikin 8 months ago
@molewizard So any good or service that you do for yourself that you could have paid someone to do is stealing? Everytime you cook for yourself you're stealing revenue from a resturaunt.
warjikin 8 months ago
@warjikin What is unique about that restaurant's food? What right fo they have over anyone else to monopolise it?
Nothing is unique about it, at least innovation-wise. You obviously can't copyright a skill, e.g. the skill of the chef. They have no right to copyright the food.
These analogies do not address the issue at hand. There are reasons why copyright applies to certain things, and not to others.
molewizard 8 months ago
@warjikin It's not just about stealing revenue from a *product* that could have been made by someone else.
It's about stealing revenue from an *idea* that was thought of by someone else.
At least in essence.
molewizard 8 months ago
@molewizard
still, copying is not theft. It is copying. You cannot tell me that I cannot copy a thought. I do not care about patents. You cannot patent a thought, nor a vision. I think this world has become one big hoax. They have even began patenting genetically modified PIGS and even genetically modified CORN...
This is stupid. THese patenting bureaus can patent my faeces
orion1979z 7 months ago 2
@orion1979z Copying in the context of copying is.
There's not really any point arguing the point. People that make these laws obviously understand the subject better than most.
molewizard 6 months ago
@orion1979z *copying in the context of this song is
molewizard 6 months ago
@molewizard But that doesn't work in art. Art's not meant to be evaluated that way. The thing is you should free your art (and not become a source of money for large companies) and believe on audiences enough and they surly will support you. After all everyone would gladly give money to the artist him/herself then to a product made by some capitalistic organization deprived from the artist. Artists are the victims here. Hence the analogy.
mizimakov 1 month ago
@mizimakov I agree. But bicycles are products, not art. And the analogy still doesn't work in the case of art. It's just that artists shouldn't lock down other artists.
molewizard 1 month ago
@molewizard Truth.
mizimakov 1 month ago
@greenghost2008 If your position is that all IP is bad, then I would agree with you and Nina. Is that your position? ..that all property should be tangible and Intellectual property should not be protected by law?
kkasajian 11 months ago
@kkasajian. What happen if I have some idea and later, two months, you have the same idea but you protect it by law? I'm the propietary of the idea or you? Ah ok, you just protected it first but I taken the idea first than you. That can not be. Someday the propietary of "intellect" will be gone. You can be credited for a work but not to be the owner of an idea. Nobody is owner of an idea or all is owner of an idea, the same. I hate patents and that kind of mind. That is backward.
anyeos 9 months ago
@anyeos what if you come to me with an idea, I think it's great. So you want me to fund it because you are sure it will be a success. I am sure of its potential as well, but I just ignore you and build the product myself. I even admit the idea was yours, but there is not law to protect you because we now live in the world that you describe where propietary of "intellect" is gone.
kkasajian 9 months ago
@kkasajian. But you can gift me the product. Why you always think about getting things for yourself but for no one more? that is selfish.
anyeos 9 months ago
@anyeos I don't understand what point you're trying to make. I'm sorry. I am not speaking for myself necessarily, but people are selfish. Are you saying that you want to rely on other people being nice? Have you read "the selfish gene" ?
kkasajian 9 months ago
@kkasajian. But you can gift me the product. Why you always think about getting things for yourself but for no one more? that is selfish. Anyway if you are so, I will not give you my idea. You first need to learn other things, like to be less selfish.
anyeos 9 months ago
@kkasajian. But you can gift me the product. Why you always think about getting things for yourself but for no one more? that is selfish. Anyway if you are so, I will not give you my idea. You first need to learn other things, like to be less selfish. You are talking me about a selfish world, I don't like that kind of world. I'm talking about a sharing world.
anyeos 9 months ago
@kkasajian. But you can gift me the product or you can give me work to do (How do you plan to make the product? Without workers?). Why you always think about getting things for yourself but for no one more? that is selfish. Anyway if you are so, I will not give you my idea. You first need to learn other things, like to be less selfish. You are talking me about a selfish world, I don't like that kind of world. I'm talking about a sharing world.
anyeos 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kkasajian. But you can gift me the product or you can give me work to do (How do you plan to make the product? Without workers?). Why you always think about getting things for yourself but for no one more? that is selfish and backward. Anyway if you are so, I will not give you my idea. You first need to learn other things, like to be less selfish. You are talking me about a selfish world, I don't like that kind of world. I'm talking about a sharing world.
anyeos 9 months ago
OMG I can see her bra strap. ..NIIIICCCEE
greenghost2008 11 months ago
@greenghost2008 ew?
TOURNAMENTPOKER 11 months ago
@TOURNAMENTPOKER hey man she is kinda hot in that outfit.
greenghost2008 11 months ago
i'm glad you all agree with me then, than Nina Paley's argument isn't sound
kkasajian 11 months ago
@kkasajian How so? IP is bad for humanity. This is because it keeps inventions and imaginative products away from the market. and stuff like that.
greenghost2008 11 months ago
@greenghost2008 Your dumb! IP is what makes possible intelectual work!!! STUPID!
texugonervoso 10 months ago
this is so silly...there is not a single person on the internet that could make a bicycle...much less nina paley...if she actually came up with the animation, the music and words, then she created it...and she is letting everyone use it...which is called permission...so you are not stealing her copyright...
rainbowmusicomaha 11 months ago
I didn't mean it's wrong because it's illegal. I meant it's wrong. Copying is theft if what you're copying is someone's intellectual property. Unless you don't believe in intellectual property in general.
kkasajian 11 months ago
@kkasajian Intellectual Prperty Duh!!! That's what the question is about...
arkspc 11 months ago
People confuse the word "illegal" and "wrong" just because something is illegal does not mean it's wrong. And just because you don't agree with something does not make it wrong either. People have different view points on the subject.
The80sKickAss 11 months ago
Sven, you're over thinking it. Clearly this is not a legal argument. She's wrong.
People who do wrong things have a need to rationalize what they do as right.
kkasajian 1 year ago
@kkasajian people who do "right" things have a need to rationalize what they do as right.
The80sKickAss 11 months ago
PirateBay CAN'T BE SHUT DOWN !!!!
TOURNAMENTPOKER 1 year ago 45
@TOURNAMENTPOKER, it practically is shut down, there isn't much on it compared to other torrent sites.
ndyt 11 months ago
@ndyt what
TOURNAMENTPOKER 11 months ago
if you could copy FOOD, would you FEED THE HUNGRY, or would you ASK FOR PROFIT?
goacolyte 1 year ago 11
@goacolyte
WMG, MPAA and others would ask for money!
that's for sure!
odv000 1 year ago
PirateBay CAN'T BE SHUT DOWN !!!!
alabski 1 year ago
PirateBay CAN'T BE SHUT DOWN !!!!
alabski 1 year ago
I understand why people copy movies. They pay some actors $20 million for 4 months of work!!! Thats crazy!! Then the studios charge an arm and a leg for these movies, so they can pay the actors their big fat paycheck. I dont care how good an actor someone might be, they are not worth $20 million for a few months work. According to Forbes the 10 highest paid actors from June 09' - June 10' got paid a total of $349 million dollars!!!!!!
4funky1 1 year ago 15
@4funky1 I understand your point of view but I'm not sure if you know that acting is actually one of the hardest jobs in the world and also working in the movie industry all along is a very very stressful and most of the time really ungrateful job (not as much as being a doctor though) . I agree that some of the paychecks are really unreal but I also think that you shouldn't be angry at the actors yet be angry at the system and those who are making up the rules.
mizimakov 1 month ago
@mizimakov I have disagree with you. Acting is not one of the hardest jobs in the world it just takes talent, some have it some dont & there are many in between. Just like any other performer/entertainer whether they be singers, dancers, sportsman etc. I am not angry at the actors but the same people that agree to pay the huge paychecks are the same ones that make millions themselves & charge the general public more than what its worth so the actor can make his millions.
4funky1 1 month ago
@4funky1 That's a very romanticized view of it, and though it's true to a certain point you can't say that all that stress isn't hard - even for talented actors. Having to deal with having no private life whatsoever and similar.
2nd. My parents are both in the film industry in Europe and I for fact know how hard is it to work 18 to 20 hours per day 6 months and have a lousy pay. Try it and then tell me it isn't hard. Hell, try organizing a film shooting for less money and say that. No way.
mizimakov 1 month ago
@mizimakov i don't think he's talking about all the movies and all the artists... just the ones that get millions of dollars and ask for money from people that earn 1 or 2 $ an hour
andreirocks1992 1 month ago
@andreirocks1992 I know he isn't but the point is the actors aren't at guilt here the fucking capitalistic pig organizations are.
mizimakov 1 month ago
@4funky1 and think of the people that don't even work as much as the actors, that get money, like CE--.... oh.. 1 year old comment. hmmm. maybe i shouldn't reply.. oh well
andreirocks1992 1 month ago
@andreirocks1992 True that!
mizimakov 1 month ago
PirateBay FTW!!!
Aaron1046 1 year ago
i agree with Nina Paley
sinand99 1 year ago 2
yeah ok guys but if companies didn't have that money which they get using copyrights they wouldn't afford to make such a great movies and stuff- 3d cinema etc
alepysiak55 1 year ago
If kept in check... file sharing is the equilibrium for the massive uncontrolled monetary domination of the world, it is the great equalizer for people everywhere....
Sure the entertainment industry will lose money... cry about it... people will still pay for records and pay money for entertainment.... somewhat.
Eventually most likely... IP's will be a thing of the past.
Flyboy711672005 1 year ago
Copying, file sharing, P2P software distribution through the use of sharing bought IP's...
One may conclude that this process used to elicit information and creativity from one another is wrong and illegal since the overall value of said information and creativity from a business standpoint will drop
Yet one may also conclude that due to the sheer massive scale of the monopolization of monetary value and inspiration from creativity,
FILE SHARING IS THE EQUILIBRIUM THAT SOCIETY NEEDS!
Flyboy711672005 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
Sidionian 1 year ago
is she hindu?
larkfeathers 1 year ago
I'd hit it!
ziggyjuarez 1 year ago
she is cool :D
zikacs51 1 year ago 2
\m/ YEAH MISS AWESOMENESS!!!! \m/
Pengasius14 1 year ago
This type of bullshit can only come from someone this ugly.
tlreddragon 1 year ago
awesome
plilley 1 year ago 2
@northsun99 Any fool can say what something is worth to him, but that doesn't directly affect an item's market value. I can't buy a car for a dollar just because I think that's what it's worth. Doesn't mean I need to change how I feel either. So yes, bad analogy and please go troll elsewhere.
drackbolt 1 year ago
I'd slapchop this bitch into analworm remission.
TooKoolKris 1 year ago
Did she just made it up in her mind like that?
blackwersus2 1 year ago
Great performance! I smiled the whole song theough :))
TheRailwaystationist 1 year ago
Lets give here a Italian Greeting
alperenaaa 1 year ago
she look's loco!!!
Mortensenbaby 1 year ago
Quit rationalizing thievery. People only make songs, programs and other things people "share" freely to try and make a profit, which we all have a right to do. If no one will buy, no one will make a profit, and no one will be motivated to make a very good product. Competition and profit are essential to progress. You can't ask a popular band to put the years of work in to make a top album and then tell them only 50 people will actually pay for it while the rest will just steal it.
drackbolt 1 year ago
@drackbolt you can't steal something from someone unless they post it. It's their fault too.
rudeplatypus 1 year ago
@rudeplatypus True, fencing and illegal dissemination are part of the problem. And there are also cases where software, movies or music is not voluntarily shared. It only takes one member of a project or employee to release something into the wild. But that doesn't mean pirating downloaders are less culpable. That's like the old "she was asking for it" defense for rape; it's just more rationalization to avoid blame. And I mean that by analogy only, not level of seriousness.
drackbolt 1 year ago
@drackbolt
silly capitalist, profit isnt everyones only goal
jonhamilton1000 1 year ago 2
@jonhamilton1000 Cute, and true, but completely unrelated to my point. If money (or something like it) doesn't change hands, then how can we value work? What if everyone did this? Competition would disappear and everything from software to health care would suffer. Plus, taxes don't get collected and we lose fiducial strength versus other countries. Our economy is strong enough to support some of that, but only so much, and each bit hurts. I say charge money even if you don't want to.
drackbolt 1 year ago
@drackbolt ya b/c open source software is completely dead. have you heard of Jonas Salk? People arent as motivate by money as much as you may think.
jonhamilton1000 1 year ago
@jonhamilton1000 Yes they are. One example of a philanthropist says hardly nothing about all people. He still had a good day job and made a good enough living that he didn't want more money. That is definitely not most people. And anyway, my bigger point is that there's nothing wrong with money, or wanting it. Open-source software rides the coattails of profiteering efforts. How many great open-source programs can you name that released before a retail competitor paved the way?
drackbolt 1 year ago
@drackbolt the venus project.
chrisplus23 1 year ago
@drackbolt So - how much does your wife/girlfriend charge you for sex? After all, if money doesn't change hands, how can you value it?
northsun99 1 year ago
@northsun99 Don't leave witless false analogies just to try to be smart. Personal value is obviously completely different from economical value; totally different mechanisms at play, and the first isn't an issue here.
drackbolt 1 year ago
@drackbolt Oh, right *obviously*.
My analogy is perfectly apropos. Just because you realize it destroys your argument, doesn't mean it isn't right.
Maybe you should think about what you say before you say it. It's *OBVIOUS* to me (and most other people) that people can create art because they enjoy doing it. If it makes the art that you create solely for money worth less, that's not our problem.
northsun99 1 year ago
@drackbolt So - how much does your wife/girlfriend charge you for sex? After all, if money doesn't change hands, how can you value it?
northsun99 1 year ago
Copying is nice, I'm all for sharing, but it's fucked the music, film, games, software industry.
The next thing will be books.
It's starting to get so bad that 1000's of people are leaving or being made unemployed from these industries every week.
The only way to combat this can only come from the Internet Service Providers, but the Hackers will always win.
tinghaling 1 year ago 3
@tinghaling Yeah, you never see any big movies come out anymore. No good bands makes music and there are no games or softwares to be found. Its just not worth it.... Hey wait a minute. Are all in the Music, Film, Game and Software industry idiots who does work without profit?! Maybe they actually do make a little money of it. I mean they do have houses bigger than schools and cars more expensive than regular houses.
kekke2000 1 year ago
@tinghaling That is a lie. Who do you work for? AFACT? MPAA? The film industry is posting bigger profits than ever! And the profits lost by major labels isn't being lost to people copying music, it has been lost through their own lack of foresight to an online music store that has become so powerful it allows its owner to dictate terms to the labels, that little store is called... iTunes. And an ISP is not there to act as your own copyright enforcement police.
Keruaran 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Copying is nice, I'm all for sharing, but it's fucked the music, film, games, software industry.
The next thing will be books.
It's starting to get so bad that 1000's of people are leaving or being made unemployed from these industries every week.
The only way to combat this can only come from the Internet Service Providers, but the Hackers will always win.
tinghaling 1 year ago
Bravo !
LunaVorax 1 year ago
The songs sucks, the idea sucks, it is easy to understand why she don't cares about copying... Well, if somebody "copy" my creations, I'LL HAVE TO GO ON FOOT! "Thank YOU" NINA PALEY for spreading such a stupidity and get me and all other creators out of business. Better I think of making a living with "copying" too.
texugonervoso 1 year ago
Ugh! She doesn't mind theft until someone's steals her material. Trust me, this person is hardly what you think.
TwoUselessLegs 1 year ago
That is probably most moronic thing i've ever seen. Copying is pure theft sometimes. Unless if you're "creating" another thing which is similar to original. I'm working to develop a software which takes my 10 years. And a bastard comes and copies it without any payment or credit. Not theft? Yeah yeah..
seqizz 1 year ago 2
@seqizz This kinda theory would only apply if "bastard" came and stole it and made money out of it, otherwise it doesnt matter
fizzlefishfizzle 1 year ago
@fizzlefishfizzle Of course. And the "bastard" will copy, distribute via torrent. People will write cracks and keygens. And if i would sell 1000 copies, now i can only sell 40 copies. "it doesnt matter" as long as you can crack..
hell yeah, copying is heaven!
seqizz 1 year ago 2
@seqizz copying is creating an identical copy. So your statement contains a major logical fallacy.
SkyBon0 1 year ago
A better analogy would be sneaking into a movie, play, or sports game without buying a ticket. One where there are empty seats and your head doesn't get in anybody's way. Theft doesn't really describe it, and it doesn't necessarily mean a lost sale, but it is illegal and you could quite reasonably argue that it's wrong.
If somebody snuck into an art gallery without paying, though, newspapers wouldn't report that they stole all the paintings by looking at them.
SvenTheViking 1 year ago 17
@SvenTheViking (Might not have been clear there. I meant not EVERY person who sneaks in translates to a lost sale. Obviously a certain percentage of sales are lost as a result of people sneaking in).
SvenTheViking 1 year ago
now that would have been funny to see that live..............i be this nina lady is smoking in the sack too
BenjaminConstruct 1 year ago
I would like to have sex with her.
AWESOME90002 1 year ago 2
@AWESOME90002 Your honesty made me laugh hysterically.
Sloopydrew 1 year ago
@AWESOME90002 you sir are freaking desperate
wiziek 1 year ago
This is not a complex issue. I pay for the goods and services to create my artwork. I then need to sell the work in order to pay my bills and go on creating more artwork.
Romulusorion 1 year ago
"Raping isn't a crime, killing a person leaves one less. Raping it leaves one more, thats what raping is for. Raping isn't a crime, if I rape u, then u feel it too. One orgasim for me and one for u. That's what raping can do."
"If I kill u then u would not live, but if I just rape u then there is sex for each of us, making more babies. That is what we call raping, sharing sexual pleasure with everyone. Thats why raping is funnnnnnn!!!!!!"
-LatinTaco4u
Valo778 1 year ago
that is like saying:
"Raping isn't a crime, killing a person leaves one less. Raping it leaves one more, thats what raping is for. Raping isn't a crime, if I rape u, then u feel it too. One orgasim for me and one for u. That's what raping can do."
"If I kill u then u would not live, but if I just rape u then there is sex for each of us, making more babies. That is what we call raping, sharing sexual pleasure with everyone. Thats why raping is funnnnnnn!!!!!!"
GTFO here with this BS!
LatinTaco4u 1 year ago
@LatinTaco4u No, because you put 3 different things; Rape, crime and killing and in the song there is only 2; Copying and theft so that's why it isn't the same.
CubeStunt 1 year ago
@CubeStunt
Did she or did she not mention stealing in the song? So it Copying, theft and stealing which is three things, same as my version. Do u have a hearing problem?
LatinTaco4u 1 year ago
Um... no offense, but aren't stealing and theft the same thing?
Whereas rape and killing are just two different kinds of crime. Not sure those two versions can be compared at all.
scratch799 1 year ago
It's cute to sing songs. But that doesn't make what you sing true.
US Supreme Court Justice Breyer: "Deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft."
Who to believe... a cartoonist or a Justice of the Supreme Court? Hmm...
theplanetsarehere 1 year ago
@theplanetsarehere "Who to believe... a cartoonist or a Justice of the Supreme Court?"
I think if you just asked me that question without reference to anything else, I'd pick the cartoonist.
The point isn't that copying is illegal according the the government's laws. We all know it is. The point is that the law is wrong.
OldCottage2 1 year ago
@OldCottage2 The song arrests that "copying isn't theft". That is in contradiction to the interpretation of law at one of the highest levels. I wouldn't challenge this if there was a clear message in line with what you argue. I don't agree, mind you. But you have every right to argue to change laws. This song seems to purport something that is not legally true as if it were unassailable fact. That's Fox News style misrepresentation and it should not be supported.
theplanetsarehere 1 year ago
@theplanetsarehere That's true if you define "law" as being decrees passed by legislatures. But to many of us, true law is not the opinions of politicians but the Natural Law inscribed in the souls of all human beings. And, according the Natural Law, copying is NOT theft but the sovereign right of each and every individual. If the statutes of politicians disagree, those statutes are themselves illegitimate.
OldCottage2 1 year ago
@OldCottage2 We don't all get to make our own set of laws. In fact, you're argument is almost exact duplicate of the arguments presented by the Confederate States in regards to justifying slavery. Abolishment of slavery was unpopular legally and was forwarded and enforced by the government against the will of the people.
theplanetsarehere 1 year ago
@OldCottage2 Also: There is no Natural Law. For that matter, I have yet to see evidence of a "soul". Even if there were, you would quickly find that your concept of "natural law" and someone else's concept differ. And you would need a third party to help find middle ground. And suddenly, guess what you have? Government.
theplanetsarehere 1 year ago
@theplanetsarehere Slavery? Gimme a break. Right and wrong are objective and don't change regardless of what the king says, what the pols say, what experts say, what the "popular will" says, or what anybody says. To you, that's like supporting slavery. Well, if slavery's legal and enforced by the govt, as it was in the country for 90 years, I guess it's okay, right? No one has natural rights or anything, right?
OldCottage2 1 year ago
@OldCottage2 You're dodging the point. How does your view of this "natural law" supersede my view of my rights? Who are you to dictate how my own creative works should be protected?
As soon as you have one dissenting opinion on what is and isn't a "natural" right, your entire world view falls apart. You require moderation. You require government.
Your fantasy world simply does not exist. No matter how much you pretend otherwise.
theplanetsarehere 1 year ago
@theplanetsarehere "As soon as you have one dissenting opinion on what is and isn't a 'natural' right, your entire world view falls apart."
No, it doesn't because I think these things can be analyzed logically. I think my view is logical and your view is illogical. I understand you think precisely the opposite: that your view's logical and mine isn't. Nonetheless, that doesn't change the fact of that there is an objective reality that can be analyzed through reason. Natural law is part of that.
OldCottage2 1 year ago
@OldCottage2 The minute you dictate how my labor must be disseminated regardless of my preference, you have skewed off the course of logic. There is nothing logical about what you believe, because you have convinced yourself that culture is created by a collective society and you reject the value of individualism.
There is an objective reality. You are allowed to do what you want with what you create. I am allowed to do what I want with what I create. Any other approach involves oppression.
theplanetsarehere 1 year ago
@theplanetsarehere If you think I'm a collectivist or a "fascist," you're making really confused assumption. Many, many libertarians reject the concept of IP as fake property for the simple reason that it is not scarce and therefore you can't homestead an idea. You do not have control rights over the communication of an idea because it's superabundant and nothing is forcibly taken from you when it's communicated.
OldCottage2 1 year ago
@OldCottage2 It doesn't matter what you label it. The end result is the same. You believe you should have authority over my labors. From the end result, that is a definitively fascist approach, even if the path that leads you to said result is from a different sociopolitical view.
If ideas are not scarce, than no one has need of copying. My work. My rights. You don't get to dictate how my labors should be disseminated. As Ayn Rand said, "A man has a right to the product of his mind".
theplanetsarehere 1 year ago
@theplanetsarehere Property rights do not exist in the super-abundant world because there is no loss of property to the owner. If a person really owned "the products of his mind" communication would be virtually impossible, since the person's ideas spread every time he communicates them. This is why copyrights are always arbitrary (Should they last for 14 years, 50 years, when? What should they cover exactly? Lines of text? Recipes?).
OldCottage2 1 year ago
Comment removed
ThePlanetJupiter 1 year ago
@ThePlanetJupiter Property rights in SUPER-ABUNDANT things, like ideas do not exist. No you are not entitled to monopolize control over the distribution of your idea.
OldCottage2 1 year ago
@OldCottage2 I get that this is your opinion. However, legally speaking you are incorrect.
theplanetsarehere 1 year ago
@theplanetsarehere But morally I'm correct.
OldCottage2 1 year ago
@OldCottage2 If the morality of your position were so clear, there would be no debate. I'd say your position is morally bankrupt and we're back at an impasses. Such declarations prove nothing.
Legally you are wrong. That is fact.
Morally your position is debatable, at best.
As I said: My work. My rights. You don't get to dictate how my labors should be disseminated. And I don't get to dictate how your labors are disseminated.
ThePlanetJupiter 1 year ago
@ThePlanetJupiter "Legally" is not the point. Man's laws are frequently wrong and can frequently. Morally, my position adhere to natural law, while yours does not no matter how vehemently you assert it. This is demonstrated by the fact that your supposed right was created by statute. If you lived in before the 17th century or so you would never have presumed to have a right to COPIES of your work. You still don't presume to have one after the legal limit has elapsed. It's totally arbitrary.
OldCottage2 1 year ago
@OldCottage2 What you mean is that your position adheres to your concept of natural law. But your philosophy is not universally held and you have no authority to project your belief system on to me. That's why legality matters. So that there is a system of arbitration between our dissenting world views.
By the way, if you lived before the 17th century or so there would be alot of things you would not presume to have a right to. So what? It's not the pre-1600's and it never will be again.
ThePlanetJupiter 1 year ago
@ThePlanetJupiter These things can be analyzed logically. I think it's logical there is no legitimate property in the communication of an idea. To put it another way, you have no right over other peoples' communication. That's why IP is arbitrary and couldn't be applied consistently. If it could, it would be perpetual; Homer's heirs should still have property of the Iliad's copyright.
OldCottage2 1 year ago
@OldCottage2 I agree that these things can be analyzed logically. I think that asserting control over the product of an individuals mind against their wishes is a violation. You can do as you like with your labors. You have no right over my labors. To suggest otherwise strikes as illogical. When such an impasse arrives we turn to legal arbitration. And the law is clear in this instance.
ThePlanetJupiter 1 year ago
@ThePlanetJupiter You have no right to control a nothing person's communication simple because he said something you previously said.
"When such an impasse arrives we turn to legal arbitration."
According to the statutes. But statutes can be changed, and that's what some of us are lobbying in favor of.
OldCottage2 1 year ago
@OldCottage2 If the only way you can make your point is to simplify creative labors down to the belittling description of "something you previously said", then you can't really make your point. Comparing a full length novel or film down to the level of a mere utterance is akin to comparing a shot glass full of Mountain Dew to the water reserves of a glacier. Not every act is equal, so they should not be treated equally.
Until you lobbying is (if ever) successful, things are as they are. Logic.
ThePlanetJupiter 1 year ago
@ThePlanetJupiter Again, one can only have property is scarce resources. That's the whole point of property. There would be no need for property rights if resources were superabundant. It does not trespass over a person's domain to copy anything, only to take from his scarce supply of goods so that he has less than before. Presumably, if copyright is ever legally abolished you will agree with my views, since they would then match the law?
OldCottage2 1 year ago
@OldCottage2 The product of an individual mind is a "scarce resource". It doesn't matter if duplications of the end result of my creativity can be made without effort. Without the tremendous time and effort required at the genesis, the "resource" does not come into existence. Therefore the "resource" is rare.
To prove me wrong, let's see you create something using my imagination.
If copyright were abolished I would agree that arbitration would favor you. Nothing more.
ThePlanetJupiter 1 year ago
@ThePlanetJupiter Your production of the original work may require "tremendous effort," making copies only requires the effort it takes to make the copy. Again, you don't hold any property rights in a copy. You cannot "own" an idea. You cannot "own" a concept.
OldCottage2 1 year ago
@OldCottage2 Once again: Yes I can own a concept. Yes I can own an idea. I get that you wish that wasn't the case, but you keep making your statements as absolute fact when they are instead the way you *wish* things to be.
The copies cannot exist without the original. You cannot separate the labor of the original creation from the equation and still claim to be forwarding a "logical" argument. It doesn't matter how easy a copy is to make. The original is definitively limited in availability.
ThePlanetJupiter 1 year ago
@ThePlanetJupiter You don't own everything your work may have an effect on. Extrapolate what you're saying to other areas. Do you own the enjoyment people might derive from your work? If you're a farmer, do you own peoples' bodies after they received nourishment from your food? No, you only own that scarce item you directly produced. Well, I'm tired of arguing, so this is my final word on the subject.
OldCottage2 1 year ago
@OldCottage2 You're contesting an area I did not challenge with analogies not applicable to the discussion. There are laws built into copyright specifically protecting derivative works, and I support those laws. As for the "only own that scarce item" argument: You're trying to force rules governing physical objects onto intangible works. Copies do not exist without an original. You cannot logically separate rules governing the original from rules governing the copy.
Good talking to you. Bye.
ThePlanetJupiter 1 year ago
@ThePlanetJupiter You keep calling in laws as the final point. Laws are imaginary just like borders. When was the last time you saw a migratory bird stop for a border check? This is what natural law is about. And its something the human species has lost as we've been trying to bend nature to our will. I suggest you stop spending time in the office with your imaginary things and go outside and enjoy the natural world, because we won't have it much longer the way we are going.
monkeyfunkyJohn 1 year ago 2
@monkeyfunkyJohn
Art (the art being copied) is not a resource found freely appearing in nature. Furthermore (and most importantly) this dialog is predicated on the legal definition of theft, as seen in the little song "copying isn't theft". Theft IS a legal term. This IS a discussion about what constitutes an act of theft. So yes... laws ARE the final point within the context of this dialog. Fact.
ThePlanetJupiter 1 year ago
@ThePlanetJupiter Fact: laws are made up concepts by men and are not real outside of our heads. Fact: we have to live with them as we are too primitive still to get along with each other. Fact: in the meantime though when a law goes against the wishes of society, then society displays its disapproval as is the case with the large number of people who copy digital media for free despite it being illegal.
monkeyfunkyJohn 1 year ago 2
@monkeyfunkyJohn - Not a single thing you mention counters the definition of "theft" in relation to copying. Yes, laws are constructs of society. But no... majority rule actually isn't the basis for law. Not in the US anyway.
As an example: In the 1800's there was a law that was enacted that went against the wishes of the majority of society. It was involved the end of slavery. As you are likely aware, half the nation rebelled. The law was enforced regardless. Majority will is not the answer.
ThePlanetJupiter 1 year ago
@monkeyfunkyJohn So, does that mean that I can decide to ignore my next speeding ticket, on the basis that fact laws are "made up concepts by men"? :)
luvmyrecords 1 year ago
@ThePlanetJupiter
That's