How to stop Piracy?

The alphabet is in the public domain.

Linguists don't invent language.

Rich is right. You are nothing but a common thief.

That's a different area. What is protected about the Coca-Cola logo on it is not the information content. A trademark is a different sort of protection.

Actually, depending on the importance of the sign to the overall scene, the motorist may very well be able to sell pictures of the local area that include it.

But this is a silly case anyway. If you want to use Coca-Cola as an example, put the secret formula on the sign.

There's nothing to stop anyone from manufacturing it then (well, getting legal coca extract is an issue) - the major theoretical issue is that they couldn't use Coca-Cola's trademark on it. Instead it would probably be something like the Target mouthwash bottle that says "compare to Scope Cool Peppermint". That bottle doesn't even include the usual 'not produced or distrubed by [major company], the makers of [trademark](R)'

We agree!! :)

Language can be trademarked and copyrighted..

Wow indeed. I'm surprised that nobody can defend IP laws without resorting to name calling. How about a logical argument supporting your assertions? I guess it's harder than I thought.

If I'm a common thief for copying a book, than the library must be organized crime. They're giving away the information for free. In fact, that's why your suggested business plan above doesn't work very well.

But libraries don't "deprive authors of their rightful income", any more than a supermarket also deprives those authors of their rightful income - by taking peoples money that could be going to the authors. Used book dealers also don't take money from the author.

Competition is not theft!

- shevek

I'm aware of the current laws, yes.

He is in violation of copyright law, yes. But he is not a thief in my opinion. If I was a juror I would declare him innocent.

I entirely agree with you on the status of the law currently. My point is that this law may be in need of serious changes, being inherently of the nature of many laws which place central government in charge of industry instead of allowing free market forces decide. I'm saying, lets consider the libertarian or free-market ideal for this question.

Take your Coke sign. The government decides what you are and aren't allowed to paint on a paper. To scratch on the ground. Is that the kind of world we want our children to grow up in? Is that kind of big-brother really needed by CC corp. in order to make just profits?

Bottlers of water with and without flavorings can sell a good product to us for a good price and stay in business. The arrival of competion, means that the original seller is going to have to work a little harder to stay on top. While he suffers, consumers benefit as the prices will go down. As a producer of a new product you should know that if some gizmo is selling well it will be reverse-engineered and others will try to sell it too. You have that much time to press your time advantage due to you having the idea first, learning how to build it, etc. If we can't stay ahead of the game and innovate enough to make our products new and/or attractive against competition.. then I say we should go out of business.

I could perhaps argue a defense of Socialism and IP laws.. want to switch sides?

Actually, libertarians are divided on the issue of the proper degree (if any) of IP protection.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

The public group of consumers may wish to purchase the original product, for whatever reason. It is therefore in the public interest to allow only the original producer to use a original distinctive trademark.

Ok, but it's the linguists job to study language and perhaps its history, not invent it. But true, one you copyright a language if you're its author. You can even keep it as a trade secret, for all the good it'll do. So?

No name calling. A simple statement of fact.

Now who's pulling out the adhominem artillery? The fact remains that you openly advocate theft of property, and are a thief.

Try copying an entire book at the library some time. Do look up the copyright laws before you do so though.

It is when you sell their property without compensation. You may own the deat tree the ideas are transferred on. No one may own the ideas, but the author owns the expressions of the ideas. If you copy those ideas and sell them you've stolen property from the author.

it's

So that's a riduculous abuse of governmental power, I argue. Freedom of speech is more my speed.

Why don't you show what I stole? Put a tag on it marked "exhibit a".

That "fact" remains false.

Tell it to print.google.com. Easier to copy a book if you cut the binding off, but then you have to pay the library fees. Kind of a pain reading looseleaf photocopies though, isn't it. I'd gladly pay a publisher for a nice binding job instead.

Again, could put the property on exhibit for the court to see? I want to see this property you are accusing me of stealing. How much does it weigh? When did the plaintiff come into possession of this property?

Did I violate a contract that I had agreed to?

- shevek

OK, I'll use little words. What you create is yours. By default. By definition. Say, for example, your hair. You create it from oxygen, water, and protien. Right from scratch. Is it your hair, or does some nebulous authority own it? Who owns you? Who owns your ideas?

Answer that question - I mean, name names! And maybe we'll have something to discuss.

Thanks, Rich

For many engineers the answer to who owns their ideas is their employer - it is often written into the employment contract.

Ian

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.

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.