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

[low preference guy]

Because the Constitution is important.

Not everything in the Constitution is good. E.g. sixteenth amendment. I put IP also among the bad things.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

What does that have to do with anything? Why do the IP side do nothing but appeal to authority and skirt the argument?

individual human being is sovereign = owns self
individual human being owns self= ownership of time,energy and talents
individual human being owning time,energy and talents= ownership of what is produced by time,energy,and talents
individual owns product=property

property is mutually given, and with contractual agreement or agreements depending on the actual contract between 2 property owners.To say that no contract is legitimate between 2 property owners is to debase their sovereignty ,or to debase 1 or the other persons sovereignty.

fraud :
1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.


When a contractual agreement is made between 2 sovereign property owners that contractual agreement must be upheld for it to be consent. Otherwise it can become fraud. To debase the contractual agreement is to void the very existence of property and contradict the sovereignty.


I saved my thoughts in note pad in case you decided to ask that question again.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I partly agree with that. But that is what our "representatives" in Washington think. Alot of them think, "Oh, the first ammendment is important, but our duty to declare war isn't." I have found you have to embrace the whole Constitution.

I guess you have failed basic Constitution 101: There is an amendment process -- ergo, you do not have to defend any part of the Constitution, except acknowledging that to change it you must amend it. So you wouldn't be in favor of getting rid of the 16th, 17th, etc.? I defend anothers right to say what they want on their own property, but it doesn't mean I sanction what they say. If you believe in the social contract, and Constitutionalism, you can defend the Constitution without sanctioning anything within-it. Are you just fine with the Government socializing the postal service? You find zero-fault in the Constitution?

 

[dusman]

Doesn't this IP crap when taken to the full out extent ultimately mean that "creators" can appeal to the government to have my memories of their artwork erased from my brain?

Why are you creating a strawman for this? And, no, its the act of replicating, deriving, redistributing something that is tangible that is the point of IP. What gives you the right to take something I put my heart into and either present it as your own or go against my wishes if I don't like how you represent it? What if you took my art and put it onto a pornography web site? Do you think that is right? What if it was clear to everyone that it was my work and I lost client's because I was inadvertently associated to that?

 

[dusman]

Just answer the question please.

The originators right to decide how and when his work is represented, redistributed, derived from, is what is stolen. That has always been the exclusive right of the creator. Your logic would assume you have a right to infringe upon my rights.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The originators right to decide how and when his work is represented, redistributed, derived from, is what is stolen. That has always been the exclusive right of the creator. Your logic would assume you have a right to infringe upon my rights.

All rights are derived from property rights. What other rights are there? You still didn't answer the question -- the OP claimed he was stolen from. I want to know what was stolen. What property of his was stolen?

 

[wizardwatson]

Why are you creating a strawman for this? And, no, its the act of replicating, deriving, redistributing something that is tangible that is the point of IP. What gives you the right to take something I put my heart into and either present it as your own or go against my wishes if I don't like how you represent it? What if you took my art and put it onto a pornography web site? Do you think that is right? What if it was clear to everyone that it was my work and I lost client's because I was inadvertently associated to that?

Just because something is immoral doesn't make it illegal.

You just need to ask yourself:

What would Jesus copyright?

 

[specsaregood]

You just need to ask yourself:
What would Jesus copyright?

That is the wrong question, as nobody is disupting that creators have the right to give their work freely into the public domain.
A more apt question would be something like, What work product of others would Jesus use without permission and despite the objections of its creator.

 

[The Free Hornet]

"The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8

Just thought I would throw that out there...

FYI,

Note the word "limited". The Supreme Court has allowed any limit - it could be a million years for all they care and it can be applied RETROACTIVELY regardless of how much money you just paid the Creator - blessed is His name - for a copy of His piece of crap.

Like most things, the rentseekers have made a mockery of the constitution. Give an inch, and they will take a mile. Lets stop giving inches.

 

[dusman]

All rights are derived from property rights. What other rights are there? You still didn't answer the question -- the OP claimed he was stolen from. I want to know what was stolen. What property of his was stolen?

I am the only one allowed to decide how my artwork is represented, redistributed, derived from, and is my exclusive right, which does in fact fall under property rights. It would be no different if you came onto my property and put a sign up that I don't want there. What you aren't getting is that digital property is so easily transferable and so you assume that means that no property right applies to how it's used. When you take my property and make it your own, you violate the foundation of property right.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Just because something is immoral doesn't make it illegal.

You just need to ask yourself:

What would Jesus copyright?

Do you know what Jesus said about a coin which had Caesar's face on it? I can play that game too ...........stop with the straw mans

 

[low preference guy]

That is the wrong question, as nobody is disupting that creators have the right to give their work freely into the public domain.
A more apt question would be something like, What work product of others would Jesus use without permission and despite the objections of its creator.

That's a moral question. We are discussing legality. So the right question I think is would Jesus approve threatening and putting in jail somebody who reproduced a song even if he didn't sign any contract agreeing to not reproduce the song.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

That's a moral question. We are discussing legality. So the right question I think is would Jesus approve threatening and putting in jail somebody who reproduced a song even if he didn't sign any contract agreeing to not reproduce the song.

Jesus was a carpenter ,he built stuff with his own two hands ..I am quite sure that he did not steal from people.

 

[dusman]

That's a moral question. We are discussing legality. So the right question I think is would Jesus approve threatening and putting in jail somebody who reproduced a song even if he didn't sign any contract agreeing to not reproduce the song.

So you reject a morality position for another morality position.

If we are purely discussing legality here, then it should be clear that redistribution, in whatever form it may come IS ILLEGAL.

 

[wizardwatson]

Do you know what Jesus said about a coin which had Caesar's face on it? I can play that game too ...........stop with the straw mans

I'm not strawmanning. I'm being facetious and flippant.

Mostly because I'm really tired of this IP debate. The debate is over in my mind. The only reason IP rights exist are because its in the Constitution. In that vein I'm forced to follow it, doesn't mean I think its right or that it should be there.

 

[specsaregood]

That's a moral question. We are discussing legality.

Well the person I replied to brought it up.

So the right question I think is would Jesus approve threatening and putting in jail somebody who reproduced a song even if he didn't sign any contract agreeing to not reproduce the song.

I have no problem requiring signed contracts

 

[Razmear]

Jesus was a carpenter ,he built stuff with his own two hands ..I am quite sure that he did not steal from people.

But if JC copied the work of other carpenters ("Hey Mary, you want a new deck like the neighbors have?") then he did technically steal IP.

Been wondering as I peruse this thread how many of the pro IP crowd paid royalties to use their avatars?

Information and Ideas should be freely shared for the betterment of mankind.

eb

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I'm not strawmanning. I'm being facetious and flippant.

Mostly because I'm really tired of this IP debate. The debate is over in my mind. The only reason IP rights exist are because its in the Constitution. In that vein I'm forced to follow it, doesn't mean I think its right or that it should be there.

I gave you reasoning and you ignored it.

 

[specsaregood]

Information and Ideas should be freely shared for the betterment of mankind.
eb

And yet you too want to add restrictions on the reuse of your IP.

 

[wizardwatson]

I gave you reasoning and you ignored it.

I've been on these lovely boards for a while now and have participated in these arguments ad nauseum. All the reasoning on the pro-IP side boils down to saying its immoral. That may be in a lot of cases.

I remember a interview I saw a few years back where Dr. Dre said that downloading his music illegally was, and I quote "taking food off my families table".

Only in America will multi-millionaires complain about loss of royalties while half the world starves to death. Is that not "immoral"?