I think that he was saying that they are, and that they shouldn't be stolen by somebody else who claims to have discovered it first
If that's the case, then what logically follows is we can't use the term "meme" because it is property of Richard Dawkins (since he used it first). We can't use any word unless it was invented by ourselves, since someone else "created" them and using it would be an infringement on their "property".
Or unless the creator states that you can use it, either through verbal or written communication or by not restricting usage. In the case of "meme" it's the latter
That's not my argument, mine is that no ideas, words, sequences of words, or bits, or colors can be owned. Ideas can be copied without infringing on the owners use of them.
For instance, if I invent a new way to harvest cotton, and you copy my idea, your use of it does not prevent me from using it also.
Also, i'm talking about books not singaler words, as a book containing the word "meme" and only "meme" would not be a book, that's a sentence.
Your logic sucks.
What constitutes a book? How many words? How many letters? If it's 500, if someone writes a "book" that's 499 words, he can't protect that, but if it's 500, he can? Please tell me more about your arbitrary, made up rules that you are trying to enforce on everyone.
Not an argument.
Some of that is bordering on strawman -- every a cursory reading of IP statutes would show there are conditions, exceptions and whatever else. The only way you would be restricted in using a word is if it was trademarked and then it is mainly for use in business contexts.
From the previous topic, and I guess this as well you position seems to be that the US constitution, a few amendments (possibly just beyond those of the bill of rights) including the free speech and certain property rights are foundational laws that go above basically everything else in your world view. If that is the case and reading them in a vacuum then yeah I guess it would be a violation to call intellectual property a thing and enforce it as such.
It is not the case though (there are many laws, the system being set up such that were always designed to be more of them -- see also what the word amendment means, that being they got it wrong initially and needed to change it and left provisions to do so) and there are many exceptions to said speech and property laws, the notion of copyright and intellectual property in general being among them. Such things get made as they are theoretically useful to society, or in some cases because things are corrupt and laws get pushed through.
There are various things we could look at to see if it is useful. Number of works vs time vs introduction or enforcement of various IP laws is likely a good one, though it will have to be qualified by looking at places with different timelines or approaches.
Suffice it to say though IP exists and is an accepted concept by basically all of the modern world.
From the previous topic, and I guess this as well you position seems to be that the US constitution, a few amendments (possibly just beyond those of the bill of rights) including the free speech and certain property rights are foundational laws that go above basically everything else in your world view. If that is the case and reading them in a vacuum then yeah I guess it would be a violation to call intellectual property a thing and enforce it as such.
It is not the case though (there are many laws, the system being set up such that were always designed to be more of them -- see also what the word amendment means, that being they got it wrong initially and needed to change it and left provisions to do so) and there are many exceptions to said speech and property laws, the notion of copyright and intellectual property in general being among them. Such things get made as they are theoretically useful to society, or in some cases because things are corrupt and laws get pushed through.
There are various things we could look at to see if it is useful. Number of works vs time vs introduction or enforcement of various IP laws is likely a good one, though it will have to be qualified by looking at places with different timelines or approaches.
Suffice it to say though IP exists and is an accepted concept by basically all of the modern world.
Ok imagine I spent A LOT of time on my product, A program that would allow you to find the nearest fitbit near you (Sorry for how lame that is). And then I publish it. Now then some mother fricking idiot like you comes around taking his work! THAT YOU SPENT NO TIME ON MAKING OR THINKING ABOUT! BUT YEAH I'M GONNA USE THIS PROGRAM CAUSE NO ONE FRICKIN OWNS IT! YOU KNOW WHAT I DON'T EVEN OWN MY HOUSE NOW! HELL, YOU KNOW WHAT YOU FRICKING OWN MY SOUL, THX SATEN!
And at one point, slavery exists and was an accepted concept by all of the "modern" world. That's not an argument.
"Copying" is not "taking". If I copy your painting, you still have the original. If I copy your method of discovering fitbits, you still have, and can still use your method.
If anyone is interested in the logic and reason behind rejecting IP laws, check out https://mises.org/library/case-against-ip-concise-guide
Piracy isn't like stealing. It's far more complicated than that. Which makes it hard to discuss, because people want a black and white "This is mine, this is not yours" line.
Piracy is closer to buying a book from a bookstore, then copying/printing the pages and giving that copy to a friend to read. The friend may or may not have ever actually bought the book. Perhaps their motives are completely irrelevant.
Currently many countries copyright laws extend to how their license, the thing they own, is distributed. In the case of the copied book, you only have permission to read the book and keep it for further readings. Many copyright owners get a bit testy when you try and copy their stuff and distribute it. They see that as their right. Copyright law, for the most part, agrees with them.
A ruling in the US made a small exception for ripping CDs to MP3s. Many take this to mean that the logic that supported that ruling can therefore be applied to all the things. That, unfortunately, is not how law works. Only ripping of cds are exempt. That and radio stations are exempt from paying artist for playing their songs on air, for very odd reasons. But that's another discussion.
The point of contention is that while the copyright owner has the only right to decide how and when their product is distributed, you copying their work has no affect on them. Or rather, it has as much affect on them as second hand sales. Are second hand-sales illegal? Absolutely not. And for good reasons that I don't have time or effort to lay out all right here.
But software companies are trying to get rid of the second-hand market as well. They see a loss in profit in the second-hand market as they could see it is just as bad as pirating to their bottom line. This is why they keep trying to push for digital downloads only, single use codes, and restricting movement of data as much as possible.
We certainly don't like that. Well, most of us don't like that. We feel we bought something, it's ours. But to them, you just bought the right to use it. for yourself. no one else.
That's why I still choose physical media as often as I can. What's the solution? who knows. But piracy is the result of the consumer wanting more control and options over their limited time and money, and "right to use but not own or sell" is the flip side of that struggle.
Piracy is closer to buying a book from a bookstore, then copying/printing the pages and giving that copy to a friend to read. The friend may or may not have ever actually bought the book. Perhaps their motives are completely irrelevant.
Currently many countries copyright laws extend to how their license, the thing they own, is distributed. In the case of the copied book, you only have permission to read the book and keep it for further readings. Many copyright owners get a bit testy when you try and copy their stuff and distribute it. They see that as their right. Copyright law, for the most part, agrees with them.
A ruling in the US made a small exception for ripping CDs to MP3s. Many take this to mean that the logic that supported that ruling can therefore be applied to all the things. That, unfortunately, is not how law works. Only ripping of cds are exempt. That and radio stations are exempt from paying artist for playing their songs on air, for very odd reasons. But that's another discussion.
The point of contention is that while the copyright owner has the only right to decide how and when their product is distributed, you copying their work has no affect on them. Or rather, it has as much affect on them as second hand sales. Are second hand-sales illegal? Absolutely not. And for good reasons that I don't have time or effort to lay out all right here.
But software companies are trying to get rid of the second-hand market as well. They see a loss in profit in the second-hand market as they could see it is just as bad as pirating to their bottom line. This is why they keep trying to push for digital downloads only, single use codes, and restricting movement of data as much as possible.
We certainly don't like that. Well, most of us don't like that. We feel we bought something, it's ours. But to them, you just bought the right to use it. for yourself. no one else.
That's why I still choose physical media as often as I can. What's the solution? who knows. But piracy is the result of the consumer wanting more control and options over their limited time and money, and "right to use but not own or sell" is the flip side of that struggle.
Ok.
Listen, you never diss my friend @FAST6191 . If you do. You die. He gives more helpful info then this crap and your tumblr crap combined! Any way back to subject. Well yes, But if I want to make money, how will I? Also, you're sounding like you want all things open source, which is something that will never happen xD
Your logic makes no sense! NO ONE CAN MAKE MONEY BEACAUSE THEY CAN JUST COPY YOUR FRICKING METHOD! I get the positive side, But the fricking idea that everything just magically becomes everyones is dirty and disgusting! It's like saying I own your house! Just I'm gonna copy the contents and build it right outside, making sure you don't lose anthing! But you fricking are! You're losing money!
On a related note, you cannot copyright or trademark a process. Recipes and the like cannot be copyrighted. That's why some choose to create a slogan, or a popular phrase, around their process, because that phrase or slogan is something that can be trademarked. Or, put another way, you can make your own video game console, you just can't make a sony video game console (or have your video game motto be "make believe")
Last edited by osaka35,
You do not have a right to extort money out of me for a pattern of words/bits/colors. You cannot own an idea.
What you are advocating is using violence against me if I copy a sequence of bits, in my own house, with my own property. That affects no one and does not take the sequence of bits away from the original author.
Using your logic, how can anyone be convicted of murder? I mean, it's just moving bits of atoms around. How can moving bits of atoms around be a crime?
While I agree that doing stuff at home doesn't directly affect anyone else, that is a singular instance. You have to take a step back and see how the change happens on a world-scale. What trends are created through moving certain patterns of words/bits/colors, if everyone is doing it. You have to understand that before you can understand whether it's something that should be supported or dismissed.
No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
- John Donne
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
- John Donne
Is that related? eh, a bit. Really, I just like the excuse to whip that poem out.
Last edited by osaka35,
Murder violated another person's self ownership and property rights. IP laws also violate my property, because it gives every author co-ownership of my property, telling me things I can and cannot do it with, things that do not violate others rights or property.
The burden of proof lies on you to prove that letting adults use their property in ways that doesn't harm anyone, that this should be restricted and individuals who copy things should have violence used against them.
thing is with piracy all your doing is some one who owns the game wants to share it with others an puts it on the internet its the guys game so he should be able to do what he wants with it the only problem is this won't work because every one will just pirate instead of buy it and the company will not get any money its kind of an unfair law but has to be done or compnays would lose alot of money
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
-
@
BigOnYa:
@SylverReZ I've never used a disposable, seems like a waste. kinda cool idea tho. It would be nice to have vape built in to a cell phone even. "The iVape"+1 -
-
-
-
-
-
@
K3Nv2:
I was hoping I could add a custom ROM to this fire HD 10 tablet but guess no one's made twrp available -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
ZeroT21:
only ps5 updated to latest firmware can go on psn, jailbroken ones just don't use psn or they risk getting flagged or banned, altho spouting profanity in online play alredy does that
