Are you a thief?

[Renegade]

The cost of not defending intellectual rights is to not defend any property rights.

I see the issue quite differently. The term "intellectual property" has inappropriately expropriated the word "property" to express a concept which is quite different from physical property.

Unlike physical property, another's use of IP doesn't deprive the IP's "owner" use of that property.

The copyright system and patent system is simply an incentive system employed so that people are rewarded for creating ideas. In return for creating those ideas the state agrees to give the creator exclusive use for commercial purposes of those ideas for a period of time. It can only grant that exclusive use to the extent of its jurisdiction. The state somewhat arbitrarily sets the level of incentive it provides. Generally that incentive is sufficient for the creators to continue to generate ideas.

Interestingly many content creators do not generate completely original content but build upon content created by others, yet claim "ownership" of the content.

IMV, "Intellectual Property" is a misleading term which ought to be more appropriately termed "Intellectual Incentive"

[jdobbin]

IMV, "Intellectual Property" is a misleading term which ought to be more appropriately termed "Intelliectual Incentive"

You can bring it up at the next convention. As I said, it isn't likely that its going to disappear nor will changing the name let it be treated any differently that property.

[Bryan]

What are your thoughts? Do you consider yourself a thief? Should these handful of rich guys producing this crap be getting your hard-earned cash?

Absolutely not. When digital piracy occurs, the original product is still intact and in place. No theft has occurred.

[jdobbin]

Absolutely not. When digital piracy occurs, the original product is still intact and in place. No theft has occurred.

It's an interesting point of view. One that would still land you in court if you tried to justify it as such.

[Riverwind]

Absolutely not. When digital piracy occurs, the original product is still intact and in place. No theft has occurred.

You thinking is a lot like the thinking of people who believe that dumping toxic waste into the oceans is harmless because the amount of waste they dump is insignificant. Such actions only become a problem when everyone does it. A significant chunk of our economy depends on economioc activity associated with copyright protections. If those protections did not exist then that economic activity would simply disappear and that would affect your pocket book.

[Renegade]

You can bring it up at the next convention. As I said, it isn't likely that its going to disappear nor will changing the name let it be treated any differently that property.

Ah but it is treated differently than property. Do we expect property to transfer to public domain when the original author dies or after a set number of years? If not, why not, since you claim both are treated the same.

[Renegade]

AIDS in Africa: good news at last on generic drugs

Ottawa - The National Union of Public and General Employees welcomes the news that Canada will at last modify its Patent Act to allow the sale of cheap generic drugs to Third World countries, especially to help deal with the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

The announcement was made this week by the federal government following an appeal by Stephen Lewis, the United Nations special envoy for AIDS, to the world's Group of Seven industrial countries - United States, Japan, Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Canada.

link

dobbin, what do you think of legislation such as described above? Is the government "stealing" the IP of the companies which created the drugs by unilaterally allowing generic versions to be sold abroad?

Let me put another scenario forward. If someone creates a cure for cancer and patents it, but then chooses not to make it commercially available, can the government steal his IP and make it available?

[jdobbin]

Ah but it is treated differently than property. Do we expect property to transfer to public domain when the original author dies or after a set number of years? If not, why not, since you claim both are treated the same.

They are treated differently because the state believes that cultural heritage belongs to everyone after a certain amount of time.

They treat tangible property differently as well through the use of capital gains and other death taxes.

[jdobbin]

AIDS in Africa: good news at last on generic drugs

Ottawa - The National Union of Public and General Employees welcomes the news that Canada will at last modify its Patent Act to allow the sale of cheap generic drugs to Third World countries, especially to help deal with the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

The announcement was made this week by the federal government following an appeal by Stephen Lewis, the United Nations special envoy for AIDS, to the world's Group of Seven industrial countries - United States, Japan, Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Canada.

link

dobbin, what do you think of legislation such as described above? Is the government "stealing" the IP of the companies which created the drugs by unilaterally allowing generic versions to be sold abroad?

Let me put another scenario forward. If someone creates a cure for cancer and patents it, but then chooses not to make it commercially available, can the government steal his IP and make it available?

Under the patent law, the state can take over that patent if it deems it necessary.

You think it is necessary to steal a Harry Potter book and print it up for people in North America?

[Renegade]

Under the patent law, the state can take over that patent if it deems it necessary.

You prove my point. The state arbitrarily determines when it can "steal" without fair value compensation. This is very different to physical property.

You think it is necessary to steal a Harry Potter book and print it up for people in North America?

Why does only the state have the ability to determine when "stealing" is necessary?

[Renegade]

They are treated differently because the state believes that cultural heritage belongs to everyone after a certain amount of time.

They treat tangible property differently as well through the use of capital gains and other death taxes.

Again you prove my point. It was your original contention that IP was treated the same as property. At least you acknowledge they are different.

As I've said, IMV, they are so different IP shouldn't be considered "property" at all.

[jdobbin]

Again you prove my point. It was your original contention that IP was treated the same as property. At least you acknowledge they are different.

As I've said, IMV, they are so different IP shouldn't be considered "property" at all.

You can argue that in court if you like. I had nothing to do with setting up the laws although I agree with them for the most part. I think that extensions on copyright have gone too far. I also think there has to be a bit more latitude in personal use.

Still, I can find no justification for stealing someone's work and calling it your own, marketing it on your own or just making it available with no compensation.

So, take your argument to the Conservatives as they are the ones who are about to change copyright law to make it even tougher.

[jdobbin]

You prove my point. The state arbitrarily determines when it can "steal" without fair value compensation. This is very different to physical property.

Why does only the state have the ability to determine when "stealing" is necessary?

If you have arguments about the state determining things, you should post a new message on that. I certainly don't think it is arbitrary. The rules on when and how this can happen are pretty clearly written.

If you think you are justified because you don't think it is stealing, by all means continue what you are doing and make your argument in court if you are caught.

Or take it up with the Tories who will revive C-60 on copyright.

[Renegade]

You can argue that in court if you like. I had nothing to do with setting up the laws although I agree with them for the most part. I think that extensions on copyright have gone too far. I also think there has to be a bit more latitude in personal use.

Your debate seems centered around what is the law and what a court would decide. This is not relevant to a moral debate on what is theft.

Am I confused? Are we having a legal debate on what is the law or a debate on if it is moral to steal IP?

Still, I can find no justification for stealing someone's work and calling it your own, marketing it on your own or just making it available with no compensation.

Really? Didn't you a couple of posts above justify how a state could steal someone's work and make it available with no compensation simply because it thought it was "necessary"?

So, take your argument to the Conservatives as they are the ones who are about to change copyright law to make it even tougher.

I care little what the Conservatives do or don't do as their actions don't define morality.

[Renegade]

If you have arguments about the state determining things, you should post a new message on that. I certainly don't think it is arbitrary. The rules on when and how this can happen are pretty clearly written.

What is arbitrary is that when an individual does it is termed "stealing", but when the state does so it is called "necessary".

If you think you are justified because you don't think it is stealing, by all means continue what you are doing and make your argument in court if you are caught.

You seem to have misinterpreted what I've said. I haven't said I do it or condone it or that such a law shouldn't be enforced. In fact I think a copyright law is a necessary incentive to generate ideas. I simply can't think of another better way to reward idea generation and invention. However, I think it is misuse of the word "stealing" and "theft". Those are criminal actions. Non-payment of compensation due to copyright should be a civil infraction not criminal as it is not the same as theft of physical property.

[jdobbin]

Your debate seems centered around what is the law and what a court would decide. This is not relevant to a moral debate on what is theft.

Am I confused? Are we having a legal debate on what is the law or a debate on if it is moral to steal IP?

Really? Didn't you a couple of posts above justify how a state could steal someone's work and make it available with no compensation simply because it thought it was "necessary"?

I care little what the Conservatives do or don't do as their actions don't define morality.

I wasn't responsible for the placement of this post in the morals section.

As for the state, I should clarify: I can't see a justification for someone's personal enrichment off of someone else's intellectual property. I've seen no indication that the government using generic drugs for a health crisis is for personal enrichment. In fact, such a reason for using someone's intellectual property is written into the law.

In regards to morality, I'll let others decide how they fall on the subject. I'll stick to the legal definition of stealing.

[jdobbin]

What is arbitrary is that when an individual does it is termed "stealing", but when the state does so it is called "necessary".

You seem to have misinterpreted what I've said. I haven't said I do it or condone it or that such a law shouldn't be enforced. In fact I think a copyright law is a necessary incentive to generate ideas. I simply can't think of another better way to reward idea generation and invention. However, I think it is misuse of the word "stealing" and "theft". Those are criminal actions. Non-payment of compensation due to copyright should be a civil infraction not criminal as it is not the same as theft of physical property.

Call it arbitrary if you like. I think the law is clearly written when they can do it and how.

As for your last statement, I disagree.

[Bryan]

You thinking is a lot like the thinking of people who believe that dumping toxic waste into the oceans is harmless because the amount of waste they dump is insignificant. Such actions only become a problem when everyone does it. A significant chunk of our economy depends on economioc activity associated with copyright protections. If those protections did not exist then that economic activity would simply disappear and that would affect your pocket book.

Not at all. By your logic, everyone should not be allowed to just sit at home either, because it's not spending money to make the economy move. If everyone pirated, the end result is the same as if no one did anything at all. On the other hand, if everyone polluted, the end result is a lot more pollution.

Don't want people pirating? The solution is simple: sell a product worth paying for at a price worth paying. I went into Wal-Mart today, and they had Casino Royale on DVD for $27. Twenty Seven dollars for a movie at a DISCOUNT store? People downloading that movie are not incurring a loss for the manufacturer, because nobody with a brain is going to pay that much for a movie in the first place. It's a non-sale either way, with the product still taking up space on the shelf.

Absolutely not. When digital piracy occurs, the original product is still intact and in place. No theft has occurred.

It's an interesting point of view. One that would still land you in court if you tried to justify it as such.

Not for theft, for copyright infringement.

Besides, Canadian courts have repeatedly ruled that downloading is NOT illegal.

The bottom line is, for a theft to occur, and physical loss must happen. If I take a picture of a building, I haven't stolen the building, and yet now I can look at it any time I want without actually going there. .mp3's and .avi's are just digital snapshots. The product still exists, it has NOT been stolen.

[jdobbin]

Not for theft, for copyright infringement.

Besides, Canadian courts have repeatedly ruled that downloading is NOT illegal.

The bottom line is, for a theft to occur, and physical loss must happen. If I take a picture of a building, I haven't stolen the building, and yet now I can look at it any time I want without actually going there. .mp3's and .avi's are just digital snapshots. The product still exists, it has NOT been stolen.

Here is what is said on downloading.

http://grep.law.harvard.edu/articles/03/08/22/1655233.shtml

As for the rest of your statement, the law considers uploading a crime. It is called infringement. And they do prosecute.

You can read up on that as well.

[Riverwind]

Don't want people pirating? The solution is simple: sell a product worth paying for at a price worth paying. I went into Wal-Mart today, and they had Casino Royale on DVD for $27.

I don't justify theft because the price is too high - I simply choose to not purchase the product in question. It does not really matter how you justify it - you are a freeloader who takes advantage of the fact that most people choose not to pirate because they recognize that it is wrong. There would be nothing to pirate if everyone had your attitude.

[Charles Anthony]

- you are a freeloader who takes advantage of the fact that most people choose not to pirate because they recognize that it is wrong.

Freeloading what?

The entertainment industry is using government power and taxation to market their monopoly business. They are the freeloaders.

There would be nothing to pirate if everyone had your attitude.

That is a highly speculative statement and certainly not a moral justification for government interference in the market. It is also a very naive attitude of how the entertainment industry operates.

Right now, an independent recording artist has more chances of making a successful living by doing the following:

1) release a promotional album with NO copyright

2) have everybody copy it

3) have pirate do the marketing for free

4) tour

5) owe nothing to a record company

Copyright and intellectual property have generated a bloated entertainment industry where a NON-freeloading independent artist is drowned in a see of garbage business-artists.

I have a question for the copyright-apologists: why do you think you should somebody be paid (enforced by the tax-payer, I repeat) more than once for the work they do?

[jdobbin]

I have a question for the copyright-apologists: why do you think you should somebody be paid (enforced by the tax-payer, I repeat) more than once for the work they do?

I suppose J.K. Rowling could sell one Harry Potter book for $200 million and let that one owner keep it to themselves.

[jdobbin]

Right now, an independent recording artist has more chances of making a successful living by doing the following:

1) release a promotional album with NO copyright

2) have everybody copy it

3) have pirate do the marketing for free

4) tour

5) owe nothing to a record company

That works great for a writer too. Release a book that has taken two years of their life, let pirates market it and tour...with what and for what? For people to hear them read it?

Sometimes your talk is ridiculous that I think you make it up as you go along. Thankfully, smarter people going back hundreds of years ago realized how important creators and inventors are.

[Riverwind]

It is also a very naive attitude of how the entertainment industry operates.

Copyright is NOT simply about the entertainment industry. It shows up in many different places.

Right now, an independent recording artist has more chances of making a successful living by doing the following:

Even a touring musician depends on copyright. Much of the money made on the tour comes from selling merchandise which is protected by copyright. Furthermore, without copyright a musician could not stop copycat groups from taking their songs and doing their own tours. Without copyright, a musician cannot stop companies from exploiting their songs and damaging their reputation as musicians.

You have a very niave view of the entertainment industry if you think it could work without copyright.

I have a question for the copyright-apologists: why do you think you should somebody be paid (enforced by the tax-payer, I repeat) more than once for the work they do?

For the same reason taxpayers should pay for police to catch car thieves or stock fraud artists.

[jdobbin]

Here's another reason that theft of intellectual property is a problem according to a CP story today.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070408/...llectual_rights

In one case, Chris Radziminski, a former University of Toronto graduate student, alleged his former supervisors at U of T and Indiana University plagiarized his drinking water research in two journal articles and manipulated research results.

Radziminski was threatened with a defamation suit by the University of Toronto when he attempted to contact the journals to correct the record.

An inquiry launched by Indiana University in the spring of 2006 confirmed Radziminski's allegations of misconduct. Formal apology letters were written to him and other students cited as authors on the articles.