Respect Other People's Work and Don't Steal It

[coffeewithchess]

While I understand this, wanting YOUR work to potentially be seen and get the credit for it (makes sense), from my experience I didn't mind when a few of my videos were taken and uploaded by other RP supporters...sure, they were doing it for their own benefit/traffic purposes, but I made the videos to try and wake people up and/or address a topic (or, just for the fun of it).

When YouTube deleted my account, and ALL the videos that were on it, well...the ones that had taken a few of my videos on uploaded them to their own channels saved me having to do so...

My issue isn't someone using the video (unless you're trying to make a buck on it or something?), my issue is YouTube deleting entire accounts and ALL videos with no reason given. No responses. No nothing.

 

[Carson]

I'd still like to know what // means.

No wonder there exists a generational gap.

I sort of figured that it meant someone deleted their post but still had to enter something or it wouldn't let them leave.

Now that you've ask the question I checked out the urban dictionary. It has this.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=//

 

[Natural Citizen]

I sort of figured that it meant someone deleted their post but still had to enter something or it wouldn't let them leave.

Now that you've ask the question I checked out the urban dictionary. It has this.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=//

Well, thanks for that clarification. I appreciate it. I see // all over the place and am always left with some absence of relevance. At least now I have a few different ideas of what it could mean from your link. Some of which are a little weird but it is what it is, I guess.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I am really sick of people claiming ideas as property. If I "steal" someones idea, process, or whatever, do they not still have the idea? If so, how is it stolen?

What the op gets away with here, as do others who present the same argument, is that folks don't comprehend the information system of it all beyond their own involvement or movement or contribution so to speak. And it is a system. Knowledge of some sciences does place one in an elevated position in such discussion with others who may be less...technical..for lack of a better word. But only assuming the discussion continues absent of any speak of the op's reference to application relevant to the system versus that of the idea for which the system depends upon and subsequently allows for said application(s) to display ones own perception for individual benefit alone. Because if it did then he or she wouldn't have a foot to stand on. And it does so they don't.

Which means those who feel as if they are being infringed upon are just as guilty anyhow. If not, worse. And that in itself is an important matter which needs to be placed into relevant dialogue moving forward.

The system itself is not the op's idea. So. That's all I have to say about that.

Besides. I saw the videos. They weren't even that good. Can keep em.

Youtube is a broad spectrum. It's very easy to find information specifically deemed to be free for all use. And with much more time and work put into them as well as relevant to a much broader scope than I saw from any of the particular video in question here. And wouldn't you know it. They have millions and millions and millions and millions...and millions of hits. That's how change works in the world of modern information sharing. Anything contradicting that theory is nothing less than more of the same.

Just my opinion on it though. I view the op's logic as the platform for why Change will certainly pass many right by.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'd still like to know what // means.

No wonder there exists a generational gap.

AFAIK, it's just a way to bump a thread.

 

[RickyJ]

Intellectual Property is not property, so nobody has an moral right to prevent another person from copying and posting their work.

You saying so doesn't make it so. You will have a hard time convincing a judge of that.

 

[RickyJ]

Wow, good job comparing your "right" to others' work to killing people and slavery.

Do you really think people who produce films or video games or music do so for your amusement? Not really, they're there to make money. They invest their time, their labor, their skills, their money and take the risk to try and make a profit. And you think people have a right to buy one copy, put it online and let everyone have it for free? This isn't stealing because it's not a tangible item? Please.

It seems many here think they have a right to other people's work. This is sad considering this is RPF.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I sort of figured that it meant someone deleted their post but still had to enter something or it wouldn't let them leave.

Now that you've ask the question I checked out the urban dictionary. It has this.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=//

Wow. I had no idea. Thanks!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You saying so doesn't make it so. You will have a hard time convincing a judge of that.

Actually, the burden of proof is on you, as you are making the positive claim-that IP is somehow real property (plus, as I noted before, the concept has no basis in reality).

 

[Bman]

Actually, the burden of proof is on you, as you are making the positive claim-that IP is somehow real property (plus, as I noted before, the concept has no basis in reality).

Reality. Reality says infringe on Intellectual Property and your butt quite possibly may be seeking legal defense. You guys (ancaps) have something worth while to think about but truth is you do not control the definitions. Real property is whatever the law recognizes. You can say no to that all day long. Doesn't change what is reality.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Reality. Reality says infringe on slavery laws and your butt quite possibly may be seeking legal defense. You guys (ancaps) have something worth while to think about but truth is you do not control the definitions. Real property is whatever the law recognizes. You can say no to that all day long. Doesn't change what is reality.

I hope you see why this argument is a really bad one.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Intellectual Property is not property, so nobody has an moral right to prevent another person from copying and posting their work.

You saying so doesn't make it so. You will have a hard time convincing a judge of that.

I doubt a judge would care because it would not be germane to any issue. The law for IP is different from real property.

What is Intellectual Property?
The term intellectual property (IP for short) broadly refers to property rights vested in the intangible [rights, not property]. The property rights associated with real property (land) and personal property (everything else) are fairly straightforward: the owner of such property has a right to possess it, to prevent others from possessing it, and to preserve its integrity, hence our laws against theft, trespass, and vandalism.

Intellectual property law, on the other hand, protects entities which have no physical form. This includes names and logos attached to products, inventions, and original works of authorship. Because nobody can physically possess these things, the laws of personal property cannot, and do not, apply. Accordingly, rather than protecting possession, intellectual property law generally protects exclusive rights to use or reproduce the intellectual property. IP laws may also, in some circumstances, protect secrecy.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/intellectual-property-law.html

IP refers to trademarks, trade secrets (to those contractually obligated to keep them), copyrights, and patents. As usual, people are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.

You only lose your right to copy something if you voluntarily surrender that right.

Reality. Reality says infringe on Intellectual Property and your butt quite possibly may be seeking legal defense. You guys (ancaps) have something worth while to think about but truth is you do not control the definitions. Real property is whatever the law recognizes. You can say no to that all day long. Doesn't change what is reality.

I'm not here to lick boot. The issue is not the law as it is, but as it should be. This isn't a legal advice forum. IP was once a civil body of law (now it is criminal unless you are a big corporation) and I prefer to negotiate with others and come to voluntary agreements. Others want the government to manage their relationships.

Requirements for me to voluntarily respect so-called IP, include

1) Reasonable, limited copyright lengths (as envisioned by the FOUNDERS). E.g., 5 or 7 years.

2) Disputes must be handled in civil court, not criminal court.

3) Generally, no DRM. I would not pay for a tangible item like a DVD with DRM. A service is of lessor importance since there is no expectation that it works indefinitely or that you maintain indefinite access beyond the length of the service term. Backup and format shifting rights - at my expense - for any data purchase (not rental).

4) People who did not agree to copyright/patent terms, must not have these terms forced upon them by any government or at the behest of the content industry.


Beware. Government doesn't negotiate on your behalf:

​

It is amazing how many people will be OK with copyrights of 150 years when the founders were more in line with 5-7 years. Unreal.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Reality. Reality says infringe on Intellectual Property and your butt quite possibly may be seeking legal defense. You guys (ancaps) have something worth while to think about but truth is you do not control the definitions. Real property is whatever the law recognizes. You can say no to that all day long. Doesn't change what is reality.

Legal fiction and wishful thinking are not reality. I can claim that black people are property just as legitimately as you can claim ideas are property-and we'd both be wrong. ("it does not follow that what is "legal" is necessarily "just" or "correct") You can NOT deny the laws of economics and reality (and morality/ethics) just by passing arbitrary, fascistic laws and/or appealing to authority.

ETA:I'm not an ancap. I'm a libertarian with common sense in favor of voluntary, peaceful society.

ETA2: you still haven't met the burden of proof to prove your claim.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Lol...Hold me a seat...

Hope you're enjoying the show.

 

[Bman]

Legal fiction and wishful thinking are not reality. I can claim that black people are property just as legitimately as you can claim ideas are property-and we'd both be wrong. ("it does not follow that what is "legal" is necessarily "just" or "correct") You can NOT deny the laws of economics and reality (and morality/ethics) just by passing arbitrary, fascistic laws and/or appealing to authority.

ETA:I'm not an ancap. I'm a libertarian with common sense in favor of voluntary, peaceful society.

ETA2: you still haven't met the burden of proof to prove your claim.

What would be burden of proof in regards to property? Would it be applicable in any current court system?

You can hate reality, but to deny it is fantasy. I'm just saying what is, not if it is how it should be. Reality is how things are, not how they should be.

Hope that clears it up for some of you.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The argument in scope isn't property rights though. Only the thread discussion is. And it's unfortunate that it has to be that way. Property rights are a single element with it's own rules. Those rules are of course conforming to the op's simple request which is itself genuine. But the rules relevant to the information system itself trumps and changes the terms of controversy completely if they are acknowledged...properly. And the op knows that I think. Which is why the discussion has yet to move beyond that.

Bigger fish to fry in the scope of the discussion. Cripes, people.

Actually, I don't even care. No wonder everything is so fudged up.

OP is correct only to the extent that folks understand (or do not in this case) how to ask "why?" in scope.

Murky waters though so...be careful where you surf I guess.