How to stop Piracy?

It's the entitlement attitude, that got engendered when the government started getting into the nanny business.

Thanks, Rich

And it is indeed interesting to see that 'intellectual property' is not absolute. Actually there are different kinds like trade marks, patents, copyrights, and so on.

Which leads to the observation that there exist "intellectual things" which currently can not be owned. Things invented before is supposed to be one; trivial things another.

There must be a reason the ownership of this 'property' is not absolute.

And oh yes: please talk about the kind of ownership. "Intellectual property" as a term is very vague and a sign of lawyer-speak. "Gazweezmo version 6 is our 'intellectual property'" - yes, what about it is? The name? The copyright on the packaging? The copyright on the code? A patent on any oinvention that's inside?

By using the vague term, lawyers try to use the law they like best to apply to the whole - probably even to the product idea (like Philips' great 'you can't zap away from the commercials' invention).

Thomas

Unless it is instantiated in a computer program.

--
And there's the crux of the matter.

Say I write a poem which strikes a chord in me and which I'd like
others to enjoy, and I publish it with a formal copyright notice
attached. 

My intent is, clearly, since I published it with a note asking
everyone who reads it not to copy it and disseminate it without my
permission, to make some money off of it.

You seem to think that there's something wrong with that.

I'd like to know why.

That's absurd, and is tantamount to saying that writing would have been impossible before the invention of the typewriter.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Conflicts like that can usually only exist while a system is in transition...

--
No, pirates.

Artists enter into deals with record companies.  The deals may not
be to the advantage of the artists, but that's just the result of
the artist's ineptitude at business.

Which is exactly my point - you are arguing against your unfounded assumptions of my views, rather than against the substance of what i've actually said.

In fact you don't seem to have challenged the substance at all yet.

Yes, because you ignored obvious counterexamples to your suggestion that certain types of intellectual property would not exist without protection; the counterexamples being that they were established fields of practice before they were protectable.

1. Copyright infringement is in the criminal codes in most countries in the world, laws were unified recently to ease world trade.
2. Theft too is a civil matter between thieve and victim, not only a criminal one between thieve and the people. Any crime comitted gives the victim a right to compensation against the criminal, at least in theory. Whether or not that right can be enforced in practice is a different matter.

No, the whole purpose of patent law is to make ideas available for research and innovation as soon as possible. Lets consider the alternative: Somebody has a bright idea for some new process. If there were no patent laws, he would keep it secret, and others could not use it or improve on it. For a patent, you have to disclose the idea, so that any competent person in the field can use it. In return, you receive royalties from anybody making _commercial_ use of your idea.

In an ideal world at least this protects the interest of both the public (technical and scientific progress is available as soon as possible) and the inventer to obtain the just rewards for it.

That patents, especially in the software industry, have become an obstacle rather than a catalyst for progress has to do with the wrong application of patent law, especially in the US:

- Patents are awarded on things that were, for good reason, excluded from patentability (algorithm, discoveries).

- Patents are unjustifiably broad, covering things later invented by others.

- Patens are awarded despite prior art.

No. Wealth can be generated only by work, that is a fundamental rule of macroeconomics. If I write software, or if I make an invention, or if I create a work of art, my work goes into the creation of something new. Is it not fair then that I should be the one who profits from the wealth created?

If, say, a blacksmith turns a piece of iron into a horse-shoe, he uses work to transform an object into something more usable, that is more valuable. When he turns over that horseshoe to a rider, he gets paid for his trouble. Even if the rider gave the smith the piece of iron to work with, the smith still has the right to payment for his work.

In the same way a software author has the right to earn a living from the work of his hands (or brain, as the case may be). That it is technically _easy_ to take that income away from him doesn't make it morally _right_. And so we have laws to protect us from those who want to take away from us the fruits of our labour, laws against physical theft as well as against the theft of intellectual property.

Of course it is the right of anyone to donate his work, by working for a charity for example or by making software available under a free licence (e.g. GPL). But that they do under their own free will, they should not be forced to do it (that's called communism) nor should others be allowed to just take it away (that's called theft).

As you can see from the above, it is basically a similar thing, differences in detail (and in the applicable law) none-withstanding.

You've just argued cs_posting's point (that external items -- IP, typewriters -- are not a requirement for art, etc to be produced).

Steve

--
I disagree.

Art _can't_ be produced without external items, but that wasn't
cs_posting's point.  What he was trying to do was to ridicule me by
implying that I couln't understand a relationship as blatantly
obvious as the one I illustrated.

why do you use the past tense? "was my idea".

is it because at some level you understand that by sharing it it is no longer exclusively yours?

Bye. Jasen

For one, it's a piss-poor business plan. Everyone can copy it if it's good it will be around the world in a heartbeat.

Sell it to a publisher first and get a good contract.. or use it as a stepping stone for a career.

Really? "If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants"

Newton * Letter to Robert Hooke (5 February 1675)

Fair enough. I certainly don't stand at a point to criticize your amazing contributions!

Thanks, there's a concrete example.

How about some more details? Did the patent law explicity benefit you, i.e. were lawsuits involved? Was your monetary gain entirely dependent on enforcement of intellectual property rights? Did you sell the design for these ping-through devices to a production company, did you have a contract with them that gave you a cut of all sales? That kind of arrangment doesn't require IP laws..

Cheers-

--- I wasn't talking about business, I was talking about morality. Your position seems to be that you condone the theft of intellectual property, so I assume you think having my work stolen is OK. _Is_ that your position?

---

--- Or neither.

---

--- Oops... I was thinking brightly colored pebbles.

---

--- The business arrangements I made have nothing to do with the discussion other than that the people I was dealing with at the time felt that the IP protection afforded by a patent was important enough that they wouldn't proceed without one.

The reason, of course, was that if someone infringed the patent there was legal recourse.

-- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer

I think we have some disagreement on the topic of what is theft. We both agree that if I break into your house and steal your notebook, I have commited theft - of valuable property - the information in it may be of great worth.

Where we disagree is that you feel you can put your information on a giant sign facing the highway and then still claim to have exclusive ownership of that information. I feel that a passing literate motorist is not a thief.

If for some reason you don't want people to know some information, and to take full advantage of it for their own purposes, then you'd best keep it to yourself.

So, you're claiming you have a "right" to go to the public library, copy a book, and sell the copies for profit, depriving the author of his rightful income?

That's theft. You're nothing but a common thief.

Thanks, Rich

That is because of the way authors are being paid these days - which is the result of a printing press being something very expensive in the past, not reachable for the humble author.

If books were written on demand (we all give Win some cash to finish the

3rd edition...) the result could be free to copy. The rule could even be that others are free to improve on that book, to translate it, and so on.

The way copyright, patents and trade marks are handled now is because what was best in the past. It may still be the best way now, but chances are that for the incumbent business these ways are good, while for the writer, inventor, and consumer, better possibilities exist.

I doubt whether good books are translated into every language possible - it may be that the original publisher will demand a big advance that the local publisher cannot afford. At the same time the author may think: "I have noting to lose, and perhaps I can gain a little. And if not at least I hope those people enjoy my book."

Similar to software : I feel the days of ever more restricting licenses are over. Compliance costs effort and money.

Thomas

And so are you. Did you make up all those symbols you just sent me, or copy them? "Thief".. did you make that word up are are you simply stealing the work of previous linguists?

Give me a break. Of course I can go to the library and copy a book. If I want to sell the copies for profit I'd better have a good business plan because there's a lot of competition out there doing just that.