Hollywood muscles Canada

[sideshow]

I know I would. And if you are comfortable with corporations from other countries setting canadian laws on how you can use a product that you purchase with your own dollars, thats your right. I just dont agree.

I would bet that most of the people in the "pro" camp for copyright protection dubbed a music tape or two as a teenager. THIEVES! ALL OF YOU! (and hypocrites ).

Look.....Americans ARE NOT setting CDN laws. Ours is different and they are lobbying for a change. Got it?

Of course I have dubbed a tape. THAT IS NOT ILLEGAL in Canada . It is not illegal to tape, copy nor loan a copy to a friend.

What we are talking about is making a profit from dubbing taping or selling copyrighted material.

Sheesh..

Read the thread through and then think, count your fingers and toes, and breath. Then respond.

The only issue is not about making a profit-I can see that that could be out of bounds and agree with parts of the "pro" argument. My argument (for the most part) is about the copying and/or distribution of the product for non financial gain (for instance uploading music to a p2p site for others to download-i make no money, i have paid for the cd originally, thus i am simply sharing a lawfully gained product).

If you read Riverwinds argument, he believes (and for all i know he may be correct, but i disagree at this time and would argue it more if you like) that is illegal and/or wrong that someone copies a movie, song whatever and distributes it even WITHOUT a profit being made, because at the point of purchase we have entered into a contract with the manufacturer to not do this. Thus it is illegal to dub a tape and/or give it to a friend.

Please try to follow the thread though and then respond my friend.

[Wilber]

What it boils down to is that some feel they have the right to profit from what someone else created without compensating them and others don't.

Thus it is illegal to dub a tape and/or give it to a friend.

And so it should be. You have paid for the product, your friend has not. Your friend is profiting without compensating. Having said that, I don't think that is what these people are upset about. They are upset that others are using their products to make money without compensating them for their investment and labour.

[sideshow]

What it boils down to is that some feel they have the right to profit from what someone else created without compensating them and others don't.

Thus it is illegal to dub a tape and/or give it to a friend.

And so it should be. You have paid for the product, your friend has not. Your friend is profiting without compensating. Having said that, I don't think that is what these people are upset about. They are upset that others are using their products to make money without compensating them for their investment and labour.

And if i lend my friend my car, or give him a ride somewhere? Is my friend profiting without compensating the automobile industry?

[Wilber]

And if i lend my friend my car, or give him a ride somewhere? Is my friend profiting without compensating the automobile industry?

No, you are lending him your car which you have bought and paid for. You are not giving him a copy that you have made of your car.

[Charles Anthony]

My argument (for the most part) is about the copying and/or distribution of the product for non financial gain (for instance uploading music to a p2p site for others to download-i make no money, i have paid for the cd originally, thus i am simply sharing a lawfully gained product).

even if you are not making money off of your copies, the copyright owner's ability to make his own profit is negatively affected by your distribution. Try to imagine if you, the pirate, made a copy for every person in the world. The copyright owner would have a much smaller consumer base -- only the people who want the authorized copy would buy.

Ridiculous indeed.

Books stop printing, CDs stop being pressed, movies stop filming.

Guttenburg never invents the printing press, J.S.Bach stops playing the organ, Shakespeare stops writing plays. Oh, where oh, where would we be without copyright?!?

Not true. The only issue here is what constitutes an enforceable contract. I argue that the notices on copyrighted material constitute an enforceable contract

Two things.

1) if you are examining our current State of affairs and the laws of Canada, of course you are right. I agree completely that DVD copycats will lose a court battle today. I will not dispute that.

2) if you are arguing the validity of the contracts in a free market, your assumption is unacceptable. The cost of enforcing copyright without government help may be prohibitive in a particular market. The Canadian DVD industry may choose to market their products differently or not at all. Canadians may find it more worth their while to do as the Asians do: wait and pirate.

Taking someone else's property and marketing it yourself without compensating them is theft. Why would someone like Pfizer or GSC invest hundreds of millions into developing new drugs if they knew they would have no hope of recouping their investment because Joe's Knock Off Drug Company who's only investment is the machinery to copy their product is going to rip it off and flood the market?

Granted, Pfizer or GSC might not invest at all.

On a personal note, I care not. Missing out on the magic creations of Pfizer and GSC or any other drug company is the price one must pay for the virtue of freedom. [There are other prices that come with freedom too, mind you.]

On a practical not, I do not think of it as an objectively bad thing. Missing out on the tragic creations of Pfizer and GSC or any other drug company might not be so bad after all.

Another Pain Reliever Pulled

FDA Warns of Risk In Entire Class of Anti-Inflammatories

Pfizer Inc. reluctantly halted sales of its arthritis painkiller Bextra yesterday after the Food and Drug Administration concluded that the drug posed too many serious safety risks. It was the second major arthritis medication to be withdrawn in the past six months.

In addition to asking Pfizer to stop selling its $1.4 billion-a-year blockbuster, the FDA concluded that the entire class of anti-inflammatory painkillers carries a potentially increased risk of heart attack and stroke -- and it told manufacturers to substantially toughen the safety warnings on almost all nonnarcotic painkillers still on the market.

Washington Post

Why would anyone invest in a company that develops drugs? Why would any company spend millions developing any products and why would anyone invest in them if they knew that would be the result?

I do not believe anybody is owed newer and better technology or drugs or scientific discovery.

I challenge all of the government-privilege-enforced-funded apologists to answer this question:

In about 500 years, somebody may invent a way to teleport through space. However, it might come at the cost of some people being incinerated or our natural environment being decimated. Should we be forced to pay for the advancement of technology??

If in your free market knocking off others products and selling them without even changing the name is legal, why shouldn't counterfeiting the nations currency be legal. What's the difference?

BlueBlood made the argument that he should be allowed to copy a logo or a brand name. Doing that is fraud or misrepresentation and he would probably have a hard time defending himself in a free market. However, in a truly free market, who is to say that people would rely on a logo for identifying their product?

CAVEAT: This might be thread drift.

In a truly free market, international commerce and transportation and telecommunications would not be propped up by government statesmen nor any funding from taxation. As a result, industries would not market the way they do now. People would tend to buy locally compared to importing from abroad. Our abuse of the environment might not go rampant either. I would go to my local soda shop and ask for a cola. The bar tender would pour it from the fountain, the way they did in the good old days. The big cola companies would not likely inflate themselves to the point they are now if it were not for government privilege.

People seem to be pissed when these companies are successful and make lots of money. That's the whole idea behind having a free market.

You are misunderstanding what a truly free market is. If government participates or influences the market in any way, it is not a free market.

[Wilber]

even if you are not making money off of your copies, the copyright owner's ability to make his own profit is negatively affected by your distribution. Try to imagine if you, the pirate, made a copy for every person in the world. The copyright owner would have a much smaller consumer base -- only the people who want the authorized copy would buy.

Exactly

I do not believe anybody is owed newer and better technology or drugs or scientific discovery.

Nor will they have them if the people who develop them can't make a reasonable return on their investment.

Granted, Pfizer or GSC might not invest at all.

On a personal note, I care not. Missing out on the magic creations of Pfizer and GSC or any other drug company is the price one must pay for the virtue of freedom. [There are other prices that come with freedom too, mind you.]

On a practical not, I do not think of it as an objectively bad thing. Missing out on the tragic creations of Pfizer and GSC or any other drug company might not be so bad after all.

Ignoring of course all the beneficial drugs they have developed. Do you drive a car? Should we all do without cars or any other product because some of those built are lemons and some others are downright dangerous? How would that enhance your freedom?

I challenge all of the government-privilege-enforced-funded apologists to answer this question:

In about 500 years, somebody may invent a way to teleport through space. However, it might come at the cost of some people being incinerated or our natural environment being decimated. Should we be forced to pay for the advancement of technology??

I don't understand the question. Many of the advances we enjoy today have come at great cost in lives and property to those who believed in them and were willing to commit to them. Often at some cost to the environment but I don't see many of us rushing to give them up.

[blueblood]

BlueBlood made the argument that he should be allowed to copy a logo or a brand name. Doing that is fraud or misrepresentation and he would probably have a hard time defending himself in a free market

Nope, sorry just the product, copying a logo or brand name gets me nowhere.

[Charles Anthony]

I do not believe anybody is owed newer and better technology or drugs or scientific discovery.

Nor will they have them if the people who develop them can't make a reasonable return on their investment.

I do not see that as a problem.

Ignoring of course all the beneficial drugs they have developed.

Of course. I am not denying government privilege or cronyism -- paid by taxes -- can create something beneficial. I am denying the right to government privilege and cronyism.

Do you drive a car? Should we all do without cars or any other product because some of those built are lemons and some others are downright dangerous?

I am not saying we should do without cars. I am denying the auto industry the right to government enforced privilege.

How would that enhance your freedom?

It would not make a difference to my freedom. Being free does not mean you have an infinite abundance of choice and opportunity. The Swiss Family Robinson was free on their island.

I don't understand the question.

I do not think I phrased it clearly.

Most of our technological and transportation culture is fake. Up above in post #71, RWind said that most Open Source advances were cheap knock offs that were nowhere near as good as the originals. Aside from the fact that it is a debatable view, we could also say that most technological advances are more than we really need. Most personal computers today can not operate Microsoft's new Vista which is in fact, a knock off itself of open source Xen technology.

Just like the National Arts Center and the Canada Council For The Arts, without government cronyism, barely any of our glorious benefits of copyright would exist. Would that decrease my freedom?? Of course not! I would buy my fruits and vegetables from the local farmers market. Would I be able to get berries all year around? Probably not -- however, that is too bad. On the plus side, I would probably know who my neighbors were a bit better than I do now.

[Wilber]

I do not see that as a problem.

Those who make the effort and put up the resources to create in this world do. For them it is a very big problem.

Of course. I am not denying government privilege or cronyism -- paid by taxes -- can create something beneficial. I am denying the right to government privilege and cronyism.

Government privilege and cronyism has never created anything. People who create, create things.

I am not saying we should do without cars. I am denying the auto industry the right to government enforced privilege.

You said this

On a personal note, I care not. Missing out on the magic creations of Pfizer and GSC or any other drug company is the price one must pay for the virtue of freedom. [There are other prices that come with freedom too, mind you.]

On a practical not, I do not think of it as an objectively bad thing. Missing out on the tragic creations of Pfizer and GSC or any other drug company might not be so bad after all.

If you don't care, no one is stuffing them down your throat or making you pay for them. There are many more people out there who rely on them who care very much and don't much care that you don't care. You intimate that because someone occasionally makes something that is a dud or dangerous everything else they have done has no merit and is of no use to society.

It would not make a difference to my freedom. Being free does not mean you have an infinite abundance of choice and opportunity. The Swiss Family Robinson was free on their island.

Swiss Family Robinson was a book, not reality.

Most of our technological and transportation culture is fake. Up above in post #71, RWind said that most Open Source advances were cheap knock offs that were nowhere near as good as the originals. Aside from the fact that it is a debatable view, we could also say that most technological advances are more than we really need. Most personal computers today can not operate Microsoft's new Vista which is in fact, a knock off itself of open source Xen technology.

In order to have something to knock off, someone else has to create it in the first place. It seems you are a Luddite. Thank goodness your view that most technological advances are more than we need didn't prevail two hundred years ago, 50% of children wouldn't be making it to their first birthday and those that did would be lucky to make it to 40. Or do we just give protection to those things you deem to be really needed.

[ft.niagara]

I do not believe anybody is owed newer and better technology or drugs or scientific discovery.

Nor will they have them if the people who develop them can't make a reasonable return on their investment.

I do not see that as a problem.

It is not a problem that cancer is not cured? The next antibiotic is not created? Funny how those people with disease lobby for government to solve the problem of their disease or condition. Here we have someone who wants all progress to stop, probably because he is without disease AT THE MOMENT.

How would that enhance your freedom?

It would not make a difference to my freedom. Being free does not mean you have an infinite abundance of choice and opportunity. The Swiss Family Robinson was free on their island.

Charles Anthony's vision for the future: SIMPLE LIVING.

[Charles Anthony]

Those who make the effort and put up the resources to create in this world do. For them it is a very big problem.

They do NOT put up all of the resources themselves. The copyrights and the patents and the intellectual property rights are enforced -- and funded through taxation -- by government. You are failing to understand that.

Government privilege and cronyism has never created anything.

A copyright or a patent or an intellectual property right is a government enforced privilege. You are failing to understand that. Oddly, you insist that people would not create things without our government enforced copyrights and patents and intellectual property rights.

If you don't care, no one is stuffing them down your throat or making you pay for them.

Yes, they are. I pay for the government enforced privilege of intellectual property through my taxes. You are failing to understand that.

You intimate that because someone occasionally makes something that is a dud or dangerous everything else they have done has no merit and is of no use to society.

No. I am saying that your argument that government enforced intellectual property rights has no merit. You were appealing to how much better people are with the new drugs.

Swiss Family Robinson was a book, not reality.

You think I do not know that???

In order to have something to knock off, someone else has to create it in the first place. It seems you are a Luddite.

No, actually I am more of a free-loading hypocrite than a Luddite.

Or do we just give protection to those things you deem to be really needed.

I have no choice in deciding who gets protection and neither do you. Nevertheless, both of us are forced to pay for it through our taxes.

It is not a problem that cancer is not cured? The next antibiotic is not created? Funny how those people with disease lobby for government to solve the problem of their disease or condition.

Just because people with a problem lobby government to solve their problem does not make it right.

I am not denying that government actions can do wonderfully amazing things. I am denying their authority.

Charles Anthony's vision for the future: SIMPLE LIVING.

No. My vision of the future is a world that has environmental degradation and socialists still running around chasing their tails trying to find a government to solve their problems.

When the whole environment goes to Hell, people who support the coercive powers of government privilege will be to blame.

FortN.

, the reason your quotations did not display properly is because you accidentally deleted the following first opening quote code:

[quote name='Charles Anthony' date='Mar 10 2007, 06:24 PM' post='194549']

ahead of each of your two paragraphs.

You can edit your previous post by putting that code back twice before each of your

[quote name='Wilber']

codes and it should work.

[Bryan]

What I can't believe is that nobody took Wilkins or the MPAA to task for the claim of "50% of worldwide piracy coming from Quebec camcorder copies".

People downloading movies don't want cam versions. They want, and they get real DVD rips, even when the movies are brand new to theatre, and even sometimes before they hit theatres. Even in China, those $1 DVDs they sell everywhere are not cam copies for the most part.

If the MPAA is serious about stopping piracy, they should look inside their own offices to see who it is that is leaking DVD copies of their movies to the black market. Of course, they won't do that. It's always easier to blame the boogey man from another country than it is to take a look in the mirror.

[August1991]

People downloading movies don't want cam versions. They want, and they get real DVD rips, even when the movies are brand new to theatre, and even sometimes before they hit theatres. Even in China, those $1 DVDs they sell everywhere are not cam copies for the most part.

I tend to disagree. Alot of the illegal versions are well made cam copies, possibly made with inside help.

I'm sure the MPAA is just as concerned about promo DVD copies as about cam copies.

Incidentally, the latest blockbuster "300" was made almost entirely in Montreal. It's rather ironic that a city which benefits from movie-making is also a city which is a centre of illegal copying.

If Hollywood producers were serious, they would organize a boycott of Montreal.

[Bryan]

I'm not saying that cam copies don't exist, they're just not what's fueling the pirate market. They certainly can't be counted as a "loss" to the MPAA. Anyone who is satisfied with a cam copy, wasn't going to pay any money for the real thing to begin with.

Leaked pre-release DVDs are huge. Those definitely feed the demand from people who WOULD buy the product if that was the only option, but not if they don't have to.

[sideshow]

http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft....hoose-microsoft

[JerrySeinfeld]

Guyser: They do have a GM strain of Corn, It's roundup ready, the same as Canola. Which means you cannot save the seed from your stockpile which you just harvested. BS. But as a grower I don't get copyrights, what gives. It's a frustrating double standard. As i've stated farmers taxes compensate for fuel benefit. The plant breeders act is really a giant pain in my ass, thank you LPOC. If Monsanto didn't get a patent for corn, western canadian canola producers are going to be IRATE. Our copyright laws need to be changed or tossed out.

I dont think people should be allowed to copy and then SELL movies, music, etc., but there should be nothing wrong with downloading, recording, etc. for personal use if there is no money exchanged.

Then I don't think that Bunge, Nestle, Robin Hood, etc. should be allowed to do the same thing with my grain, I'd like royalties too. If that doesn't happen, then timmy can sell pirated movies.

Listen farm boy. Does someone actually have to explain the concept of intellectual property to you?

You are not comparing apples to apples. What you produce: grain, is a COMMODITY. It's is readily producable by anyone with seeds and a tractor all over the world.

Movies take TALENT, often one-of-a-kind unique talent. As well, movies are an extremly risky business. They invest in 100 busts for the chance of 5 megahits which pay for the rest of the shit that loses money. If timmy with the camcorder takes away the profit potential of the 5 hits, the investment isn't worthwhile and hundreds of cameramen, makeup artists, lighting technicians, drivers, caterers, costume seamstresses all lose their jobs because timmy wanted to make a few hundred bucks.

There is a reason China is a manufacturing power but hasn't INVENTED anything of value over the past 100 years: they have numbers but don't protect intellectual property.

ANy civilized mature economy should respect those intellectual property rights of others.

[Charles Anthony]

Listen farm boy. Does someone actually have to explain the concept of intellectual property to you?

Can you explain how the "intellectual property" owners enforce their "rights" at tax-payers' expense?

ANy civilized mature economy should respect those intellectual property rights of others.

No. A civilized economy will make the "intellectual property" owners bare the ENTIRE cost of enforcing their "rights" themselves instead of putting it on the tax-payer.

[blueblood]

Guyser: They do have a GM strain of Corn, It's roundup ready, the same as Canola. Which means you cannot save the seed from your stockpile which you just harvested. BS. But as a grower I don't get copyrights, what gives. It's a frustrating double standard. As i've stated farmers taxes compensate for fuel benefit. The plant breeders act is really a giant pain in my ass, thank you LPOC. If Monsanto didn't get a patent for corn, western canadian canola producers are going to be IRATE. Our copyright laws need to be changed or tossed out.

I dont think people should be allowed to copy and then SELL movies, music, etc., but there should be nothing wrong with downloading, recording, etc. for personal use if there is no money exchanged.

Then I don't think that Bunge, Nestle, Robin Hood, etc. should be allowed to do the same thing with my grain, I'd like royalties too. If that doesn't happen, then timmy can sell pirated movies.

Listen farm boy. Does someone actually have to explain the concept of intellectual property to you?

You are not comparing apples to apples. What you produce: grain, is a COMMODITY. It's is readily producable by anyone with seeds and a tractor all over the world.

Movies take TALENT, often one-of-a-kind unique talent. As well, movies are an extremly risky business. They invest in 100 busts for the chance of 5 megahits which pay for the rest of the shit that loses money. If timmy with the camcorder takes away the profit potential of the 5 hits, the investment isn't worthwhile and hundreds of cameramen, makeup artists, lighting technicians, drivers, caterers, costume seamstresses all lose their jobs because timmy wanted to make a few hundred bucks.

There is a reason China is a manufacturing power but hasn't INVENTED anything of value over the past 100 years: they have numbers but don't protect intellectual property.

ANy civilized mature economy should respect those intellectual property rights of others.

The way I look at it, if the movie makers sold their "property" to the film companies to distribute them. When you sign something away, it's gone. Any idiot with a camera can make a movie too, some do it better than others. If Timmy can distribute better than the film companies than that's the film company's problem. They can have their staff search people for cameras.

Like I've been said to hundreds of times, if an industry is inefficient it's time to gut it. The entertainment industry is the most inefficient industry there is. Lets stop subsidizing this dead horse. Intellectual property is property that can be bought and sold like anything else, and it's not up to us to pay for other's incompetance.

[guyser]

If Timmy can distribute better than the film companies than that's the film company's problem.

The only way Timmy can get a copy is to steal it. And you agree Timmy should profit on stolen material. Sir I rather think you are being disingenous.

Would you be happy to see people coming along and stealing your canola (copyright or not aside) ?

Like I've been said to hundreds of times, if an industry is inefficient it's time to gut it. The entertainment industry is the most inefficient industry there is.

You have been shown more than once that your statement is completely false. That industry is in good shape.

Free market will indeed correct any inefficiencies. Who might you suggest for "gutting it" ?

[blueblood]

IMO if Timmy paid for a ticket, he paid for the movie, (but that is up for debate and our disagreement)

Am I happy that people buy my canola and then resell it at a higher value and make more money on it than I can, yah, but that's their right. That's the parallel I'm drawing with this. Let me put it this way, if there was a law protecting industries the exact same way the entertainment industry, there would be no industries going under and a lot of pissed off consumers.

Lets throw out copyright laws and we'll see how efficient the entertainment industry really is. Maybe the workers at a theatre might get off their lazy asses and check to see if people are bringing in cameras and recording devices.

[GostHacked]

Blueblood.

Your beef is something different. Monsantos had managed to create a new strain of corn. The US government allowed corporations to hold patents on boligical life. They created a certain strain with those certain properties and then sell it to you for use, and you agree to those terms of use when purchasing the corn.

Morraly I have a problem with patenting any life form. I am aware that some farmers got the shaft in Canada for the seeds were blown into another farmers property from another using only Monsantos corn seeds. It is that farmer who did not protect his neighbours. But wind blew the seeds, so who is responsible really?

Movies/music/literature is different.

If I used a photocopier to make copies of books and give/sell them to people, am I in violation of the copyright? Yes indeed I am. For that disclaimer is on the inside of a book. You have to open the cover to actually get at it. So to those who say that it was not printed clearly on the front or back of the DVD case are making a useless point.

I had read so many bad analogies/explanations here in this thread it is hilarious.

The way I look at it, if the movie makers sold their "property" to the film companies to distribute them. When you sign something away, it's gone. Any idiot with a camera can make a movie too, some do it better than others. If Timmy can distribute better than the film companies than that's the film company's problem. They can have their staff search people for cameras.

No they had an agreement/contract with the distributor to produce and distribute the product. Both made agreements that makes both parties happy. And that is a difference, I sold the product to you, without contract and without restrictions. OR I licensed the product to you so we can work together and make some money, I have the brains, you have the braun, let's sign a contract and make lots of money.

Contracts are really what it comes down to here. All music is lent to you. Says so right on the CD, or inside where the credits are. And like every contract one must read the fine print. If you fail to read the fine print, then that is not my problem now is it.

Check this out, I have here a copy of Daft Punk's Homeword CD. On the back it says ..

"All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction, copying and rental of this recording is prohibited by law."

So that allows me to make copies and sell it to others? Nope.

I made this movie, so I am going to claim all rights to it.

I did not make corn, or wheat, nature did, I don't see here getting any kickbacks.

Copywrites should exists for some time, like the life of the creator. No problem with that. Patents should be kept for 15 to 20 years. Also credit should be given to the creator of said product.

Nature should not be patented/copywritten at all. Even if you modify it like Monsantos has.

[Charles Anthony]

Morraly I have a problem with patenting any life form. I am aware that some farmers got the shaft in Canada for the seeds were blown into another farmers property from another using only Monsantos corn seeds. It is that farmer who did not protect his neighbours. But wind blew the seeds, so who is responsible really?

Nobody is responsible.

The injustice lies in enforcing the "intellectual property" rights of Monsanto on the victim-farmer. As it stands, Monsanto uses the force of government -- paid with the victim-farmer's taxes -- to impose a ridiculous restriction on the farmer. There can not be a better example of exposing the evil of this patent enforcement.

I would suggest the following business strategy for Monsanto:

Fly over the entire world and spray your seeds over every single farm. Use the mob power of all defenders of "intellectual property" rights to bilk every victim-farmer.

Movies/music/literature is different.

No. The artists still avoid the full cost of enforcing their "intellectual property" rights by making it a government/tax-payer responsibility.

[GostHacked]

No. The artists still avoid the full cost of enforcing their "intellectual property" rights by making it a government/tax-payer responsibility.

Explain more please??

I wrote a book. I want to make money off it. I have IP and have now copywritten the book. So does that mean anyone can reproduce the book at their will without express consent of myself or a party I choose to have involved in all this?

So it is up to me to defend the copywrite? I think I already have by dealing with copywrite, talking to a lawyer about the copywrite (most of the time you do not need a lawyer to copywrite anything). Now with all the legal stuff out of the way, it is stated I own the IP and copywrite of this book. I now legaly license it out to companies or people that will print my book, and there we have an agreement. They produce and make and distribute the book, I get a cut from the profits for they did most of the work, and all that was stipulated in the contract all parties involved signed into.

When being an end user for a book or a CD or a movie, it is only license to you for there was no formal agreement between the maker and the end buyer/user.

Take a look at software for computers. If you accept the terms of agreement (how many of you have actually read it, haven't?? who's fault is that then???) then you accept how the software interacts with your computer.... oh but there was spyware involved? AHH read the EULA? (End user licence agreement) it says all that right there and then, again no one really reads it. So you have no beef at all here. So you cannot make copies of that software you bought, and you cannot sell it or make copies to even give out.

Books, CDs software, movies have IP and copywrites for a reason. Someone worked hard on this with the intention of making money. Works the same in any field, you want to make money, or that great novel or movie you want to write will never see the light of day. There is something called investment in these said items as well. As a publisher, I agree to produce and distribute your book under terms we both agree. Again no such deal was made with an end user, so the end user has no legal standing to argue that he can make money off someone elses work. As the writer of the book, I did not agree to such terms, and the disclaimer in the book says so.

As the end user of a book/cd/movie, you have no rights other than personal use for that product. Selling and/or making copies for others cannot be considered personal use and violates the general use liscence of the book. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED , very important to remembet.

Again I will say the Monsantos corn is a different situation, but the laws in the United States allows corporations to hold patents on biolife. That was introduced into US Law some years ago. This set a bad precident for future patent/copywrite infrigements. Life should not be patented, even if you manage to create something new out of it.

So that is the difference I see.

[Charles Anthony]

Explain more please??

Yes.

If you have a dispute over your "copyright" you will have tax-payer's money at your disposal to enforce it. Simple as that.

I wrote a book. I want to make money off it. I have IP and have now copywritten the book. So does that mean anyone can reproduce the book at their will without express consent of myself or a party I choose to have involved in all this?

That is beside the point.

The injustice is that little old Joe who might not even know how to read (let alone care to entertain himself by staring at paper) is forced to pay taxes to defend your right to make money out of thin air.

So it is up to me to defend the copywrite?

Of course. Why should anybody else?

I think I already have by dealing with copywrite, talking to a lawyer about the copywrite (most of the time you do not need a lawyer to copywrite anything). Now with all the legal stuff out of the way,

No, you did not defend your copyright yourself and no, you did not get all of the legal stuff out of the way.

You forgot that not all of the cost is paid by you. At the very least, there is probably somebody paid by tax-payers to sit at a "Copyright Bureau" filing his nails with the hopes that an application for "copyright" from promising artists will land on his desk and require cataloguing.

So that is the difference I see.

Do you see how ALL tax-payers are forced to subsidize the government-monopolized "copyright" market whether they like it or need it or want it or none of the above?

[guyser]

If you have a dispute over your "copyright" you will have tax-payer's money at your disposal to enforce it. Simple as that.

How is that different from the court determining a property boundary dispute?

Or..someone breaks into my house. ? They too are taken care of at tax payer costs