How to stop Piracy?

if it were the police would be going after copyright infringers.

no it's not.

not by any legal definition ("dishonest apropriation of another's property with the intent to deprive him of it permanently"), and it's not a crime in the free world.

It's a civil matter between the holder and the infringer

Bye. Jasen

Neither is "stealing". Once information is in the public domain, it's in the public domain. Of course, the fiat currency issue could start whole new thread..

Rightfully yours my ass. Unless you are referring to your right to pay an armed group to ensure a monopoly enterprise.

The permission came when the information was released to the public domain.

dots

John, its no wonder he doesn't understand. He's post from a IP assigned to Switzerland

inetnum: 130.92.0.0 - 130.92.255.255 netname: UNIBE descr: University of Berne descr: Berne, Switzerland country: CH admin-c: FB61 tech-c: FB61 tech-c: CH791-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PI mnt-by: SWITCH-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered person: Fritz Buetikofer address: University of Berne address: Computer Services Department address: Gesellschaftsstrasse 6 address: CH-3012 Berne address: Switzerland phone: +41 31 631 3843 fax-no: +41 31 631 3865 e-mail: snipped-for-privacy@id.unibe.ch nic-hdl: FB61 source: RIPE # Filtered person: Christian Heim address: University of Berne address: Computer Services Department address: Gesellschaftsstrasse 6 address: CH-3012 Berne address: Switzerland phone: +41 31 631 3872 fax-no: +41 31 631 3865 e-mail: snipped-for-privacy@id.unibe.ch nic-hdl: CH791-RIPE source: RIPE # Filtered

It's not crap. it came out of a dictionary verbatim. if you think I'm wrong correct me. Insults are a sign that you fear that you are losing the argument.

that's not neccesarily true, there are two ways to not infringe copyright one is to purchase the licence the other is to not use the work. most people choose the latter.

definately...

ok, yeah, there are exceptions, like when it's being done for commercial gain.

I don't think it's as much a question of determining where they're from as it is determining where they're coming from.

If, indeed, he's an academic, then we have among us one who rails against private ownership of intellectual property and feels that fertilization of the egg should be agreed upon by committee.

dots

Pretty much correct. Or rather, I don't think there should be a difference. My apologies for the fishing here, as I look for debate on IP laws. As you may have gathered, I'm against them.

Of course in reality, the idea is available to the public as soon as they see it. The only problem is, the patent law forbids them from using it for innovation, business, health, scientific research, etc.

You may want "exclusive rights" to some information, but the reality is that once somebody else knows that information you no longer are the exclusive holder of the information.

True. I would prefer a capitalist or free market system, and I think it may come sooner rather than later. Of course until then we must live within the current system to avoid the consequences.

If you don't want anyone to know something, you shouldn't publish it.

That's what I'm complaining about!

Cheers - shevek

Now I'm curious.. are you talking about reproduction a la "Brave New World"?

And where is the connection? Are Intellectual property laws are a step in that direction?

Publishing something so that books can be sold and read is wholly different from you turning around and copying said material for your own profit.

I find that those against IP laws are generally those who aren't "IP", intellectually prolific, you're just a common thief.

...Jim Thompson

dots

dots

as

Yes, but neither scenario requires intellectual property protectionism. Quit the university, start the company that produces the design, and keep the company competitive. You don't need to sue copyright violators to do good business.

Thanks for humoring me:) I suppose my ideas now will become.. property of google?

Good question. How could I suggest that my favorite artists and inventors not be compensated for the excellent work? Yes, a perfect IP legislation rules in favor of a past inventor, with the expense born by consumers. However I think most of the artists and inventors would still be very well compensated, as many have, without "paying for protection". And many inventors have not made out well for themselves financially, despite their patents.

In practice, a huge chunk of the money goes to middle men and patent lawyers. The artists and inventors recieve but a small fraction of the money siphoned with high prices and suing any competition.

Still worse is what the system has done to pharmaceutical industry or agribusiness. And do you really think it's helped the arts?

Actually, I'm a fan of the patent office. It's a great library of diagrams and designs.

cheers - shevek

Look what it costs to pursue a patent issue. Out of reach for most inventors - only accessible to large business. And even those form a cartel to limit costs within - but it gives them leverage to kick out those nasty startups.

In software, an 'patentable invention' seems to be very easy to create - except for the lawyerese.

Now whenever you write software you got to check all those patents to see if you are infringing. If done correctly this would make software costs be 99.9 % legal and 0.1 % engineering. I can't think that is good for innovation.

That's why it is there - for protection you have got to publish.

Still I wonder why one would accept patents - which are laws forbidding to produce something for profit - seeing that they are written as vaguely as possible and not checked by a representative process. In a time when the number of inventors was very limited (because tools were not generally available) and innovation was slow, the patent system worked fine. A limited number of patents, and inventors generally being inside a business, made sure the resources needed were not too great.

But nowadays - Joe Random can afford to file his patent for whatever voice recognition algorithm he has figured out. Getting his income from it is something different - it needs huge investment in legal costs.

As far as the level of inventions: a recent application was for a TV that disallows chaning channels while in a commercial. It IS new, I agree, but is it a technical invention, or merely so stupid as not to have been published before? Still it may bit someone someday whenever teh principle is applied to something useful.

Thomas

optical dots

as

optical dots

make as

The disagreement may be more fundamental, as I arguing that this "intellectual property" is a fiction that is hurting us all.

Investors are generally looking for a business plan that will make them money. Government protectionism has made a lot of investors rich, that is true - but it doesn't make it right. Slavery also made a lot of investors rich for example.

Maybe even less. However the lawsuits will cost a lot more.

"bio-piracy", the patenting of genes, e.g. used to sue farmers who plant the same seeds they've used for generations. Keeping drugs at elevated prices. Keeping research secret. For three..

To sell concert seats. To sell the original paintings. To spread the good word. Fame and fortune are still incentives without the government protectionism. Instead we have artists trying to be the next "one hit wonders".. I would argue that the arts have suffered greatly from government protectionism.

It's all public domain. The public has access to it. Why not archive inventions like that? A good idea.

Cheers - shevek

Sheeeesh! Another f****ng Sloman... totally without a clue on how the real world operates... yet an opinion on how to "fix" everything.

Don't go away mad, just go away ;-)

...Jim Thompson

I'd love to hear a counter-opinion. That's why I'm posting here. However it looks like you are unwilling to provide me with one. What do you think I an unaware of re: how the real world operates?

The operation of the "real world" is really quite simple... personal property rights... something you ne'er-do-well socialists have trouble comprehending... you seem to think everything should be "yours" without any effort on your part.

...Jim Thompson