How to stop Piracy?

No John, you severly misunderstand intellectual property law.

Infringement is infringement, which is some cases may be actionable in civil and or criminal court - bit even in criminal court, infringement is not "theft" - it is a unique crime reflecting the unique nature of the abstract "property".

Often the law *is* garbage - but it is what it is, rather than what you wish it were.

No, the reason it's actionable is because it's against a specific law.

This is, believe it or not, a different law than that which prohibits theft.

The ill-gotten revenue, not the stolen revenue.

Using the term "theft" in the intellectual property context is inaccurate - it's popular as an emotional argument with those who have an axe to grind, but it shows ignorance and/or a willingness to make misleading statements on the part of the person using it.

The the possible legal transgression is real, but it is not theft.

And no matter how many times you ignorantly apply the word "theft" to infringement, you'll still be confusing two different crimes.

But to help you learn, I'll present an example you appear to have overlooked.

Say you are not making commercial use of your invention or any competing invention. As a result, infringement cannot in any way be taking money out of your product - it is not theft, it's actually creating a new revenue stream which would not have existed without the infringer.

You probably can take the infringer to court and may be able to win all of that revenue - but it was never stolen from you in the first place. In fact, it never would have existed without the crime.

How can a crime of creation possibly be considered theft?

These are the embarassing corners you trap yourself in when you emotionally argue that infringement is theft, instead of describing it as what it is: infringement.

No, they are *not* patentable, but they are patented. If you can prove they're not realizable the patent can be nullified. OTOH, why bother?

Ramble on...

Again, you haven't a clue, yet yammer on about hypotheticals.

If they *SELL* this software or use it for "commercial gain" it's certainly not a hobby, now is it? OTOH, if your hypothetical person uses it for self-enlightenment, everyone's cool. Neat thing that the patent taught the art, eh?

A carpenter? Do you have some better "thoughts". This one was still-born.

"Everyone?" Back away from the hash. Rich gets jealous of his stash.

The logic is that the role of government is not to dictate who can and who cannot say something. Also, I don't expect everyone to believe me.

Stealing is not what I advocate. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us, seeing as you know so much more about freedom of speech than all of us?

The book -was- published and sold in the manner prescribed by law. It was purchased by a library.

Why stop there? Keep the name-calling going, it really does make your argument so very persuasive.

By your arguments above, everyone who takes a book out is robbing the author of proper income. Sure, I may have acquired the latest Metallica album legally, but does that give me the right to share it with my friends?

At least show some consistency..

---

The context is quite clear to me. That is the nature of information - it can be read and used by others if made available to them. It appears you are the one that has problems with this context... you think it should be illegal, no?

The authorized copy of the author's work was legally obtained. How is that evidence of theft? My copy sitting next to it consists all of materials legally obtained. It is ink, paper, and binding. What has been stolen?

Plagarism, maybe. Theft, no. There's a difference between failing a class or loss of academic reputation and jail time.

If you insist that reading is stealing, or indeed opening your eyes in public (uh oh - copyrighted information entering the system), then yes I am proposing that it be legislated as OK.

In the meantime, I do know the law, thanks for the warning.

More and more people do have time for government reform, thankfully. If not, things wouldn't get any better.

You do agree that IP laws are inherently a socialist institution, correct?

This entire thread has been about my arguments to allow competition, and you say I don't want it. Is that what you call playing in your own yard?

How about some other unjustified insults? This "thief" business isn't getting the mileage you need here.

Well, the point is that for science fiction no prior art will exist. And the sci-fi side will make everything look technical and ready for granting. It is innovative as well, and not many 'skilled in the art' are available.

The XOR patent to display a cursor might be too practical, but I'm sure some video-by-computer petents fall into this category: realize that it becomes trivial soon to process video by computer, and patent it before anyone else notices. Worth of invention: 0. Worth of patent: $$$. Value created: 0. Value stolen: $$$. Damage to economy: $$$.

Thomas

They do not sell it, but offer it as a free download. Perhaps with soem ad banners on the download page. And oh yes, redistribution is allowed.

But the patent holder claims lost sales...

A plumber? Are you sure everything in carpentry is at least 20 years old when people still patent stuff like 'add on handle for beer crate'?

Thomas

do.

True. Unless it were perhaps a computer language.. Just curious.. does anyone have a copyright on Klingon?

No, sorry. If a government body is telling me what language I can and cannot use as a citizen who has not entered any contract, I feel that is unfair.

The first problem with that logic is that you are calling me a thief for defending alleged theives. By that argument any defense attorney is guilty of the crime the defendant is accused of.

The second problem is that the term "thief" is not well justified when no physical object has been stolen. In this thread I am a defender of alleged thieves.. yet you insist on calling me a thief.

Yes. I had a terrible business plan. You capitalized on my failure. That's what the free market is about. Next book I'm going to sell to a publisher who can compete with you, who gives me a good up-front cut, as well as royalties.

Yes. That's what I'm saying. Of course I know the current law disagrees on that point, but I'm arguing for reform. I don' t think these enforced monopolies are causing all that much good in the world.

?? I'm a thief, because I deny I'm a liar? Yes, that sounds delusional to me.

"Getting the information" means copying the information. Right?

I think the argument you want to make here is that it's ok to copy the information, as long as you don't sell it for profit.

However, as you know by now, I would still disagree.

:) Good luck stopping that. And why would you try?

You don't see a contradiction there?

--- That wasn't the point.

The point was that if you're the author of a copyrighted language, then the government's position is that since you are, in essence, the owner of that language, then no one can use that language without your permission. Which you'd have to daft not to issue if you expected to be able to communicate with anyone in that language.

---

--- Defense attorney my ass. When you lie with thieves, and when you posit that the solution to the problems brought about by the thieves who infringe on patents and copyrights is to get rid of patents and copyrights, then it becomes readily apparent that what you're doing is self-defense.

---

--- When you maintain that breaking copyright law and thus depriving an author of his just rewards is acceptable behavior to the point that copyright law should be repealed, then you're not defending thieves, you're condoning theft and asking for the repeal of the 8th Commandment. I don't think that's going to happen.

---

--- You will, for good reason, never find a publisher who will work without a copyright.

---

--- You're insane.

The reason there's such a proliferation of information in the world isn't because of altruism, it's because everyone wants to make a buck. The protection, over time, afforded by patents and copyrights is precisely what makes taking the risk of making the invention or writing the play worthwhile, and those machines and stories are precisely what makes the world a better place in which to live.

What do you think the motivation would be to invent or to write if there weren't some hope of a decent return? Some pie-in-the-sky thank you note from humanity? Forget it.

---

--- No, you're a liar because you deny you're a thief.

Here, let me punctuate it so it's more readily understandable to you:

The _fact_ is that you're an avowed thief, have been presented with ample evidence to prove that you're a thief and, by denying that, you're also a liar. Either that or delusional. Simple.

---

--- No, it means assimilating it.

---

--- The point of my argument is that it's not OK to violate copyright law. Suppose you made a million copies and gave them all away. That would also hurt the author.

---

--- Perhaps, then I should agree with you and have you argue _my_ point?

Nahhh... You'd bungle it as badly as you have your own... ;)

---

--- Not understanding why is what makes you a thief.

---

--- That you can't is what makes you a thief.

---

--- Romeo and Juliet ids in the public domain.

---

--- Yes you may. If it's copyrighted you may not make illegal copies of the song.

---

--- Yes you may. You may not make illegal copies of what you're reading to them.

---

--- You may not not if they've been illegally copied.

---

--- You may not.

---

--- In your marketplace the original textbooks may never have been produced because of the lack of an adequate return to the authors and publishers. In your marketplace "Harry Potter" may never have come to light because of the lack of an adequate return to the author and publishers.

Who is "What's her name" and why shouln't she have X billion?

---

--- Sorry, you don't think so, what???

No. Can you name all the plagiarisers who haven't?

---

--- Methinks the gentleman doth complain too much...

---

--- No, reading the book doesn't violate copyright law, as far as I know. Producing it does. If you've memorized the book and you type it out, verbatim, you've violated copyright law.

Moreover, if you take possession of unlawfully produced material you may be in possession of stolen property.

---

--- Didn't have to be. The act of copying the material is what violated the law.

---

--- Sure...

-- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer

It's not at all certain that a language can fall under the copyright laws. A number of court decisions point in the other direction, one of which actually deals with an invented language meant for people to speak (Loglan).

Another court decision found that the equivalent of a spreadsheet macro programming language was not subject to copyright.

The copyright for The Klingon Dictionary is owned by Viacom, the parent corporation of Paramount Pictures and Pocket Books. Their lawyers once claimed that anything written in Klingon is a "derivative work" of TKD, but nobody has tested that particular silly claim.

There is definitely a trademark on the word "Klingon", and the *image* of Klingons is solidly in the possession of Paramount Pictures, but use of the language is almost certainly unrestricted.

-- Alan Anderson, professional programmer and amateur Klingonist proud member of the Klingon Language Institute since 1995 qo'mey poSmoH Hol language opens worlds

majQa'

Thanks for the information. Another example of copyright going past suspect to ridiculous.

If Viacom that unable to come up with new material that we must prop it up with monopoly IP laws that take advantage of consumers?

Good Morning -

A better trick with copyright law is to make sure that people are able to use the information (in this case the klingon language) without permission. Then, what you are claiming ownership of is more valuable. In other words, you're right that Viacom won't make a penny off their Klingon monopoly rights unless people are talking or writing klingon and therefore have a need for the price-inflated (monopoly) goods (dictionaries, etc.). So they should tacitly encourage some copyright violation. In a similar way, MS tacitly encourages some copyright violation. Without it, they'd have nowhere near the same penetration in the OS sector.

Are you accusing me of copyright violation? Maybe because I used a word of Klingon? Did I cut and paste from google groups? Please do tell why -I- am a thief personally.

Actually I'm not even aiding and abetting any alleged thieves.

OK, putting your information together we can conclude that Romeo and Juliet will never be published. Nor the bible.

Let's see some of that ample evidence. Name something that I have personally stolen. Or don't, and keep calling me a thief anyway. It doesn't bother me too much.

Would you care to make that distinction rigorous? Assimilated information can be recalled to what level?

That sounds like a likely scenario! Giving away apples also hurts other apple farmers.. should that be illegal too?

I guess I already commented on that.

Like if I tape my family singing it for example? If I sing it on stage and people paid admission?

I don't believe it. $2m in royalties? You think that's money well-earned?

The adequate return is there. That can be proven by looking ath the many original texts and works of art that were made without the lure of a government protected monopoly. It can also be proven by thinking about the obvious ways to still make money with a good text even in a free market.

OK, here's an opportunity for me to express doubt in the party line I have been sticking to so far.

As a Harry Potter fan, I believe JK Rowling should be very rich due to the sales of her book. However, without enforced monopoly legislation, I find it hard to believe she would still have a billion dollars. In a free market, many other publishers would very quickly OCR the text and make their own copies, so it's unclear how much a publisher would offer her for a contract on her original text. They'd have a big advantage with pre-orders, but I estimate the price of the book for us would be about a quarter of what it is now. She'd be wealthy and famous still of course, but maybe a factor of as much as 100 poorer. What do you think? Does a world where JK Rowling only gets a few million pounds or so for her next book seem unfair to you?

I don't think there's no difference between plagiarism and theft. Of course I can't name all plagiariasers but I can name a few who were not charged with theft:

Chief Executive William Swanson of Raytheon Kaavya Viswanathan

In some cases, plagiarism is a worse crime.

Cheers - shevek