How to stop Piracy?

You have a different definition of theft or stealing? what is it?

I see your point, how could I take "you're not even remotely close to being a lawyer" as an insult... :-)

somone duplicates a rented movie and watches it again.

has the act of copying or viweing benefitted them financially?

Bye. Jasen

You claimed that copyright infringement was not a crime and you've missed (or conveniently ignored) my pointer to the appropriate NZ legislation.

You are wrong.

Ken

Rather ignorant assumptions you are making, considering that all of your examples were well established traditions BEFORE the became considered ownable "intellectual property"

snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com is from the same-location/political-crap-attitude as Sloman... adjectives: stupid, ignorant, head-up-ass, obstinate, ne'er-do-well wanting my property for free... PLONK!

...Jim Thompson

What a pile of BS. "Traditions"?

What is it YOU are saying were established BEFORE they were patented and/or copyrighted?

They say, "Ignorance is bliss". You must be very deeply into that state ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Music, poetry, computer programs, and using certain substances to prevent bacterial infection. All were doing quite well, even before the became elgible for synthetic property status via legal monopolies. To assume that they could only exist under this status is to ignorantly ignore the fact that they existed without it.

Huh? Sounds like double-talk to me. Anything know to the public beforehand CAN NOT be patented or copyrighted.

Stop talking generalities and cite a specific example.

...Jim Thompson

Beowulf

Beowulf what? A book about Beowulf?

You're being vague and ignorant again... you are about to become amongst those of the great ignored ;-)

...Jim Thompson

--- Well, sometimes it takes a while before we can figure out what something should be called, but the fact remains that if someone thinks up a way to do something it was _their_ intellect which allowed them to do it, so that means that the intellectual property (which is the way to do it) belongs to them.

let's do a little thought experiment, OK? See if you can keep up...

Let's say that my name is Isaac Newton and that I've come up with a way to describe, in exquisite detail, the motions of the planets around the sun, but I don't tell anyone how it works, I just sell them the data.

Since I'm the one who invented the method and I'm the only one who knows how to make it work, who would you say the method (and the data, BTW) belonged to, before I sold it? To you?

To someone else?

Who?

-- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer

No the quasi-poetic story itself. A creative work long preceding the concept of copyright, raised as a counter to the ignorant assumption that our lives would be devoid of such richness in a world without the concept of copyrights.

Can you refer me to a copyright on the work?

...Jim Thompson

Recognizing the originator of an idea is not nearly the same thing as granting them ownership of the idea or its use as virtual property.

Data? From what input? For what purpose?

The irony of course is that calculus would not be protectable even if first discovered today.

Neither mathematical method nor data are protectable even today. Yet there are lots of advances ongoing there as well...

Of course not - which is exactly the point. It's an example of a creation that managed to get created even in John Field's supposedly dull and monochrome world without intellectual property.

I can however refer you to a copyright on the modern story "Grendel" - as a demonstration on how much modern creativity owes to the public domain past.

Yes, as it consists of only a neural arrangment in their head. Or perhaps a collection of notes in their possession, symbolic information, or perhaps in binary form on a hard drive. Any theft of these objects is a clear violoation of your rights. Especially the head.

Once others have seen or recorded this information, they now also possess copies of that information. If you don't want anyone to know, you'd better be careful who you tell.

Johannes Kepler :)

Or maybe some other giants who's shoulders you've stood upon.

Now that you've told me you have such an idea Isaac, I would be curious. Probably not much commercial application however. Have you tried to write or sell your idea as a proposal to some religious or academic bigwigs? Perhaps you'd best publish it openly in a concise form and you'll have any academic job offer you'd like and more. As for your ideas about calculus, you should have published them openly much earlier. Sure, you still obtained fame and fortune, but with his earlier publication Leibinz stole some of the glory that could have been yours in inventing the Calculus.

Sorry for the diversion.. how about an example for the discussion using someone who actually benefitted from intellectual property law?

Cheers - shevek

--- You seem to think that we still live in that time. We don't. Fast forward about a thousand years into the future from then and it becomes apparent that the need for copyright has come about precisely because of the need for artists to be protected from the wolves who would otherwise prey upon them.

Wolves like you, for instance, who think it's your God-given right to copy anyone's works and disseminate them in any way you see fit, under the pretense that by so doing you enrich our lives.

In fact, all you're really interested in being able to do is graze, free range, on what's out there for your own benfit. That kind of attitude and behavior can only contribute to the theft of resources from the artist, quite conceivably lowering his output and diminishing any enrichment our lives might attain from that source.

Other than the Nazi aspect of it, I don't understand what it is with people like you who think it's OK to take other people's work and deal with it as if it were your own, but I'm sure that if the shoe was on the other foot and you had anything worth protecting, you and your ilk would be the first to cry wolf.

-- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer

I assume by wolves, you mean record companies?

You're first mistake is to assume that the way things have turned out is the only positive path of development that could have occured.

Your second mistake it putting words in my mouth. How do you know my views? I haven't actually expressed any - I merely pointed out counterexamples to your argument.

Third mistake: continuing off on a tangent

Fourth mistake: triggering Godwin to try to end an argument you realize you're loosing...

Fifth mistake: assuming the present status quo will persist. For software and music recording it clearly won't. In the case of software, because the industry is rapidly outgrowing traditional publisher/monopoly concepts of copyright. In the case of music recordings, because copyright is so divorced from it's alleged purpose that an increasing segment of the public would no longer support the law if it were put to referendum. That doesn't mean that the alternative to the present system is no system; but it does mean that thiings will continue to change.