Who are you to tell me what is adequate compensation?
Who are you to monopolize certain parts of information space? Who are you to stop those who want to learn from learning? Who are you to stop those who want to build on your ideas from doing so?
If I have no right of copy, what makes you think I'll create something for your amusement?
I have already described this in my other posts. You can make money without monopolizing and censoring. But regardless you seem to want your "right of copy" for reasons of principle, and I will not be able to change your mind on this, although I hope that others will avoid your mistake. If I am wrong, I will have to do without your creations.
Does nothing have value?
With information, the only valuation (be it monetary, personally, emotionally ..) that makes sense must take place on the side of the consumer, not of the producer. Producer-side valuation imposes a virtual scarcity on a resource which possesses no scarcity. This is, for many reasons, morally unfair. Can't afford to read that science textbook? Too bad you're living in the Third World, we're not going to lower our prices for you. And if you pirate it from the Net, we'll gonna send the government thugs to hunt you down and lock you up together with rapists and killers. Have a nice day. If you want a material-world analogy: paying royalties is like pricing the air we breathe, and denying those who can't pay the right to breathe.
You are arguing for the status quo
No. I am arguing that IP law is a violation of moral codes which have been with our society for centuries. Ironically, one of these codes is Do not steal.
Shall you pry the ashtray from my hands
Sigh. Another silly analogy. Will you ever learn? IP law is about granting you a monopoly on certain ashtrays, and the right to sue everyone who produces ashtrays who might have been based on a similar or (gosh!) the same idea.
You state that it hinders equal distribution of
knowledge when there is no proof that it does (everyone seems to have equal access to more than they can consume in
Quality is different from quantity.
or even needs not to (what imperative do I have for your education?)
Simple; a morally intact society cares for its weakest members. A society which punishes its weakest members (and even the not-so-weak ones, but less so) by restricting the flow of information is a morally bankrupt one. If you want to live in a society where education is simply a matter of money, even if that means imposing an unnatural scarcity on information, well, then we agree that we want to live in different societies. You may think it's necessary for progress. I say it's the end of all progress.
Let's eliminate what is common between us and figure out who has rights over what remains.
Even if we eliminate all which is common between us (and that which is common between us would already be essential for the information whose ownership you demand to result in the first place), you are building on other ideas and thoughts that I know nothing of. Everything you produce is the result of playing with the ideas of others. Yet, these others usually have no rights at all to the resulting "intellectual property". Memes work different than physical goods. It is not a concept that is easy to understand, I admit. But at least try to envision a world where memes are passed from person to person, built upon, extended, passed along etc. - one can see the memes as separate from their momentary holders, and a meme doesn't have an "owner" but rather parents and siblings. A "fair" compensation of "meme production" would require the compensation of all parents and siblings. IP is not about fairness, though, as corporations such as this one have long realized.
My reasons for writing, whatever they may be, are not a reason for you to dispose of my work as you see fit.
Again: If you don't want your works to be read, don't write them (or, more accurately, don't publish them).
Ideas are not copyrightable.
We are talking about intellectual property, not strictly about copyright. I feel no need to separate the concepts as far as some of the "patent-droids", "trademark-droids" and "copyright-droids" would like. All want to monopolize thoughts, names, ideas, numbers.
Enforcing this right places no burden on society, it places a burden on myself since the onus of a civil prosecution is mine to pursue and to pay for. Public prosecutors dont prosecute civil cases.
The burden is not the effort of the enforcement itself, it is the results it brings. Also, copyright is both criminal and civil law in most countries, including the US.
No, recombination and randomization of existing data is what a million monkeys typing at a million typewriters do.
Monkeys are not as stupid as you may think. 98,4% of chimpanzee DNA is identical to ours, and chimps' intellectual abilities are impressive. Of course, they have no concept of intellectual property, and I am certain that is the reason for tghe lack of progress in their cultural development. You may like to think of your brain as some mysterious device nobody knows or understands, but as a matter of fact, we already know a bunch of things about it, and there is no "divine spark" that creates ideas. Also, interestingly, nature, which is a non-intelligent process, has come up with far better inventions than humans ever have. Yet nature needed no incentive to create except the environment. Explain this - you must be a creationist!
I can only deny you Mike Macky if he is a commercial trademark
No. Mickey Mouse's trademark has long expired. Copyrights apply against derivative works, see also the "Gone with the Wind" case referenced in another comment.
I can only do that because you gave me permission.
Under the current law, yes. The idiocy of this would be obvious if it were applied consistently; see also the e-mail forwarding law they wanted to pass in Australia. If you want privacy, agree on it. If someone abuses your trust, don't trust them again. If someone breaks a personal contract, sue them. It's that simple.
I have evidence that they do.
Can you cite the respective passage, if it's not too long? I am aware of the fact that Roman authors were paid by booksellers (some even complained that they weren't paid enough). I would expect this to be personal contracts between the authors and the sellers, not the result of a state-enforced copyright law. I am certain that personal copying was in no way prevented, nor would I expect any kind of "anti-piracy" activities by the state.
The size of the literate public in Rome wasnt better than the population of
Not much knowledge exists about the literacy rate in the Roman Empire, but evidence suggests that it was quite high. (Karl-Joseph Weeber in "Alltag im alten Rom" writes that "a large majority" of Romans were able to read and write.) This evidence includes graffitis on walls and a popular encyclopaedia by Pliny the Elder dedicated especially to the farmers and the poor people, because the common folk needed more knowledge. From army signature lists, we also know that most people there could read and write, many even in two languages.
The occupation of Roman scholars was to preserve as much of knowledge as possible and for this reason they endlessly relearnt and rewrote the Greeks.
This is a common myth. The problem is that Greek and Roman thought are very hard to separate. Many Greek "slaves" (often living under quite acceptable conditions) were teachers and scientists, and Greek remained a long time as the language of science and knowledge. Of course it was also a requirement in order to understand the older works. So many new works were also written in Greek. We definitely know that the Romans had cement, better road building and generally more refined engineering. The suggestion that science stagnated in Roman science is quite inane.
People who read books in Ancient Rome were fed by slaves
No matter whether the literacy rate was 90% or 70%, this comment is nonsense. Regarding general living conditions, you must carefully separate the time of the Republic and the Empire; under the Empire, living conditions improved drastically, especially for slaves, who were granted more and more rights. A lot of the horror stories that are being told about Roman Emperors are known Christian fakes.
The Romans developed copyright about the time they stopped imitating themselves and the Greeks.
I strongly dispute that. Evidence, please.
You are disputing the facts of your very own existence.
You are so brainwashed that you really believe that a culture without intellectual property cannot exist. In your mind, the GPL must be a fantasy belief by some hippies who never have done any real work in their lives. But oh yes, I know, that's their decision and not ours, but how can the 100,000 bands who offer their music on MP3.com for free do so, considering that IP is essential for our existence? How can they? Shouldn't they all vanish in a large puff of logic?
I can sell my work to the highest bidding corporation and that work brought us the moon
Is the moon patented, trademarked or copyrighted? Or all of them? Apropos patents: Did you know that James Watt'S steam engine could have been much simpler than it was were it not for a patent on -- the crank? Watt didn't want to pay the royalties, so he built it with a more complicated wheel control system..
You continue to argue for philosophical change as justification against what the law, today, philosophically,
pragmatically, according to social contract, by social consensus, protects very well.
No, it doesn't. The law is fundamentally broken if the law criminalizes millions of people who weren't criminalized before.
You want to manage a flood of
creation by reverting to an anachronistic code of ethics which had neither flood nor creation, nor rights.
"Anachronistic" is always a nice term, because it is always usable to justify about everything, from the status quo to the exact opposite. Copyright is anachronistic. Lack of copyright is anachronistic. The problem, dear Luddite, is that history is not a linear graph. There isn't always progress. The least progress happened when the monopolization of knowledge was biggest -- in the Dark Ages. Copyright was invented to continue this monopolization of knowledge. In times where information was still a scarcity, expensive in creation and distribution, copyright also had its uses to prevent corporate abuse, not as an incentive to create (had it been limited to commercial actions only, we would not be in the mess we are in now). Now copyright's time has come.
You will not succeed in your revolution.
Evolution, not revolution. It's just natural.
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]